5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Factors contributing to maternal health inequalities for women who are not white British in the UK

      1
      British Journal of Midwifery
      Mark Allen Group

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Women of non-white British ethnicity have a higher maternal mortality risk for reasons not yet fully understood, and report significant concerns about stereotypes, racism and overall dissatisfaction in care. This study aimed to examine what midwives perceive to be contributing factors to ethnic disparity in maternity care.

          Methods

          A systematic search of the literature was conducted to find contemporaneous, relevant studies which were appraised for inclusion and quality. Four qualitative studies were included.

          Results

          Midwives spoke about practical, cultural and logistical concerns that contribute to health inequalities; none mentioned racism. Three themes emerged: relationship barriers, logistical barriers and a sense of us vs them. Three areas of us vs them were explored: ‘incongruent expectations’, ‘structural racism, stereotypes and implicit bias’ and ‘culture vs professional accountability’.

          Conclusions

          Further research into the impact of implicit bias is needed to adequately address health inequalities for non-white British women. A national strategy could be used to set expectations for women accessing UK maternity services early in pregnancy. Midwives need to be empowered and supported to thoroughly document women's choices so that their professional responsibilities are met.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

            Background Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. Methods PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Results Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals’ attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. Discussion The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Conclusions Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis.

              Standardized systematic search strategies facilitate rigor in research. Current search tools focus on retrieval of quantitative research. In this article we address issues relating to using existing search strategy tools, most typically the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) formulation for defining key elements of a review question, when searching for qualitative and mixed methods research studies. An alternative search strategy tool for qualitative/mixed methods research is outlined: SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). We used both the SPIDER and PICO search strategy tools with a qualitative research question. We have used the SPIDER tool to advance thinking beyond PICO in its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research. However, we have highlighted once more the need for improved indexing of qualitative articles in databases. To constitute a viable alternative to PICO, SPIDER needs to be refined and tested on a wider range of topics.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of Midwifery
                British Journal of Midwifery
                Mark Allen Group
                0969-4900
                2052-4307
                March 02 2022
                March 02 2022
                : 30
                : 3
                : 160-171
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Midwife, Yeovil District Hospital
                Article
                10.12968/bjom.2022.30.3.160
                6af84b90-abac-436c-acf6-475e9b05a93b
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article