IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v121y2017i1p66-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What women want: Exploring pregnant women’s preferences for alternative models of maternity care

Author

Listed:
  • Fawsitt, Christopher Godfrey
  • Bourke, Jane
  • Lutomski, Jennifer E.
  • Meaney, Sarah
  • McElroy, Brendan
  • Murphy, Rosemary
  • Greene, Richard Anthony

Abstract

Depending on obstetric risk, maternity care may be provided in one of two locations at hospital level: a consultant-led unit (CLU) or a midwifery-led unit (MLU). Care in a MLU is sparsely provided in Ireland, comprising as few as two units out of a total 21 maternity units. Given its potential for greater efficiencies of care and cost-savings for the state, there has been an increased interest to expand MLUs in Ireland. Yet, very little is known about women’s preferences for midwifery-led care, and whether they would utilise this service when presented with the choice of delivering in a CLU or MLU. This study seeks to involve women in the future planning of maternity care by investigating their preferences for care and subsequent motivations when choosing place of birth. Qualitative research is undertaken to explore maternal preferences for these different models of care. Women only revealed a preference for the MLU when co-located with a CLU due to its close proximity to medical services. However, the results suggest women do not have a clear preference for either model of care, but rather a hybrid model of care which encompasses features of both consultant- and midwifery-led care.

Suggested Citation

  • Fawsitt, Christopher Godfrey & Bourke, Jane & Lutomski, Jennifer E. & Meaney, Sarah & McElroy, Brendan & Murphy, Rosemary & Greene, Richard Anthony, 2017. "What women want: Exploring pregnant women’s preferences for alternative models of maternity care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 66-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:1:p:66-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851016302780
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.10.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Patricia Kennedy, 2012. "Change in Maternity Provision in Ireland,“Elephants on the Move”," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 377-395.
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Porter, Maureen & Macintyre, Sally, 1984. "What is, must be best: A research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(11), pages 1197-1200, January.
    5. Kennedy, Patricia, 2010. "Healthcare reform: Maternity service provision in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 145-151, October.
    6. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    7. Pavlova, Milena & Hendrix, Marijke & Nouwens, Elvira & Nijhuis, Jan & van Merode, Godefridus, 2009. "The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 27-34, November.
    8. Christopher G Fawsitt & Jane Bourke & Richard A Greene & Claire M Everard & Aileen Murphy & Jennifer E Lutomski, 2013. "At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.
    2. Moran, Patrick S. & Daly, Deirdre & Wuytack, Francesca & Carroll, Margaret & Turner, Michael & Normand, Charles & Begley, Cecily, 2020. "Predictors of choice of public and private maternity care among nulliparous women in Ireland, and implications for maternity care and birth experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(5), pages 556-562.
    3. Paddy Gillespie & Sharon Walsh & John Cullinan & Declan Devane, 2019. "An Analysis of Antenatal Care Pathways to Mode of Birth in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 50(2), pages 391-427.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    2. Hoffmann, Sandra A. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2005. "Torts and the Protection of "Legally Recognized" Interests," Discussion Papers 10472, Resources for the Future.
    3. Anbarci, Nejat & Arin, K. Peren & Kuhlenkasper, Torben & Zenker, Christina, 2018. "Revisiting loss aversion: Evidence from professional tennis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-18.
    4. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.
    5. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    6. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "How Large is the Endowment Effect in the Risky Investment Game?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315108, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Ashtiani, Amin Zokaei & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Stutz, David, 2021. "Nudging against panic selling: Making use of the IKEA effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    9. Vo, Thang T. & Van, Pham Hoang, 2019. "Can health insurance reduce household vulnerability? Evidence from Viet Nam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Michael G. Pollitt & Irina Shaorshadze, 2013. "The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 24, pages 523-546, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Bass, Daniel A. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Messer, Kent D., 2021. "A case for measuring negative willingness to pay for consumer goods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Munro, Alistair & Sugden, Robert, 2003. "On the theory of reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 407-428, April.
    13. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    14. Corneille, O. & D’Hondt, C. & De Winne, R. & Efendic, E. & Todorovic, A., 2021. "What leads people to tolerate negative interest rates on their savings?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Fabian Herweg & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Inefficient Renegotiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 297-332.
    16. Watson, Barry & Osberg, Lars, 2019. "Can positive income anticipations reverse the mental health impacts of negative income anxieties?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 107-122.
    17. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. Barokas, Guy & Ling, Hila Hindy & Sherman, Arie & Shavit, Tal, 2024. "To change or not to change? – Status quo bias and happiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 656-671.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    21. Roca, Mercè & Maule, A. John, 2009. "The effects of endowment on the demand for probabilistic information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 56-66, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:1:p:66-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.