To explore the relationship between the birth environment and the practice of midwifery using the theoretical approach of critical realism.
BACKGROUND:
The practice of midwifery has significant influence on the experiences and health outcomes of childbearing women. In the developed world most midwifery takes place in hospitals. The design and aesthetics of the hospital birth environment have an effect on midwives and inevitably play a role in shaping their practice. Despite this, knowledge about midwives' own thoughts and feelings regarding the design of hospital birth environments is limited.
METHODS:
An exploratory descriptive methodology was used and 16 face-to-face photo-elicitation interviews were conducted with practicing midwives. Audio recordings were made of the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis, informed by the theoretical framework of critical realism, was undertaken.
RESULTS:
Midwives identified cognitive and emotional responses to varied birth environments and were able to describe the way in which these responses influenced their practice. The overarching theme of “messages from space” was developed along with three sub-themes: messages, feelings, and behaviors. Midwives' responses aligned with the three domains of a critical realist world-view and indicated that a relationship existed between hospital birth environments and midwifery practice.
CONCLUSIONS:
The design of hospital birth rooms may shape midwifery practice by generating cognitive and emotional responses, which influence the activities and behaviors of individual midwives.
AngusJ. E., & ClarkA. M. (2012). Using critical realism in nursing and health research: Promise and challenges. Nursing Inquiry, 19(1), 1–3.
2.
ArcherM.SharpR.JonesR., & WoodiwissT. (1998). Critical realism and research methodology. Alethia: International Association for Critical Realism, 2(1), 12–16.
3.
BazelyP. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London, England: SAGE.
4.
BhaskarR. (1975). A realist theory of science (3rd ed.). London, England: Verso.
5.
BourgeaultI. L.SuthernsR.MacDonaldM., & LuceJ. (2012). Problematising public and private work spaces: Midwives' work in hospitals and in homes. Midwifery, 28(5), 582–590.
6.
BriefA., & WeissH. (2002). Organizational behaviour: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.
7.
BrinkP., & WoodM. (1998). Advanced design in nursing research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
8.
CollierA. (1994). Critical realism. An introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London, England: Verso.
9.
CruickshankJ. (2012). Positioning positivism, critical realism and social constructionism in the health sciences: A philosophical orientation. Nursing Inquiry, 19(1), 71–82.
10.
DavisD., & WalkerK. (2010). The corporeal, the social and space/place: Exploring intersections from a midwifery perspective in New Zealand. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 17(3), 377–391.
11.
DazkirS. & ReadM. (2011). Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses toward interior environments. Environment and Behavior, 10(5), 1–13.
12.
DuncanJ. (2011). The effect of colour and design in labour and delivery: A scientific approach. Optics and Laser Technology, 43, 420–424.
13.
FoureurM.DavisD.FenwickJ.LeapN.IedemaR.ForbesI., & HomerC. (2010). The relationship between birth unit design and safe, satisfying birth: Developing a hypothetical model. Midwifery, 26(5), 520–525.
14.
FreemanL.AdairV.TimperleyH., & WestS. (2006). The influence of the birthplace and models of care on midwifery practice for the management of women in labour. Women and Birth, 19(4), 97–105.
HammondA.FoureurM.HomerC., & DavisD. (2013). Space, place and the midwife: Exploring the relationship between the birth environment, neurobiology and midwifery practice. Women and Birth, 26, 277–281.
17.
HarperD. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.
18.
HochschildA. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
19.
HodnettE.DowneS.WalshD., & WestonJ. (2010). Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, CD000012. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4
20.
HodnettE.StremlerR.WestonJ., & McKeeverP. (2009). Re-conceptualising the hospital labour room: The PLACE (Pregnant and Labouring in an Ambient Clinical Environment) pilot trial. Birth, 36(2), 159–166.
21.
HuackY.RiversC., & DohertyK. (2008). Women's experiences of using a Snoezelen room during labour in Western Australia. Midwifery, 24, 460–470.
22.
HunterB. (2001). Emotion work in midwifery: A review of current knowledge. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(4), 436–444.
23.
HunterB. (2004). Conflicting ideologies as a source of emotion work in midwifery. Midwifery, 20(3), 261–272.
24.
HunterB. (2005). Emotion work and boundary maintenance in hospital-based midwifery. Midwifery, 21(3), 253–266.
25.
JeffriesB. (2011, July). Critical realism—an empirical realist critique. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper 11-03, Manchester England.
26.
LockL. R., & GibbH. J. (2003). The power of place. Midwifery, 19(2), 132–139.
27.
MaxwellJ. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28.
MillerS., & SkinnerJ. (2012). Are first time mothers who plan home birth more likely to receive evidence-based care? A comparative study of home and hospital care provided by the same midwives. Birth, 39(2), 135–144.
29.
MuchinskyP. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801–805.
30.
OdentM. (1984). Birth reborn. London, England: Random House.
31.
RashidM. (2013). The question of knowledge in evidence-based design for healthcare facilities: Limitations and suggestions. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6(4), 101–126.
32.
SandallJ.SoltaniH.GatesS.ShennanA., & DevaneD. (2013). Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, CD004667.
33.
SayerA. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London, England: Routledge.
34.
SayerA. (2000). Realism and social science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
35.
SchwandtT. (1997). The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36.
SloanM. (2007). The “real self” and inauthenticity: The importance of self-concept anchorage for emotional experiences in the workplace. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(3), 305–318.
37.
StebbinsR. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
38.
WalshD., & EvansK. (2013). Critical realism: An important theoretical perspective for midwifery research. Midwifery, 30(1), e1–e6. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.09.002
39.
WatsonA. (2009). Examining the content validity of the BUDSET Instrument within a woman-centred framework. Honours student project, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
HammondA. D.HomerC. S. E. & FoureurM. (2014). Messages from space: An exploration of the relationship between hospital birth environments and midwifery practice. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 7(4), 81–95.
