IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v121y2017i1p66-74.html

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Kennedy, Patricia, 2010. "Healthcare reform: Maternity service provision in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 145-151, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.

    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. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    3. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.
    4. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    6. Julia Blasch & Claudio Daminato, 2018. "Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 18/300, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    7. 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.
    8. Ikezoe, Keigo & Kiriyama, Eriko & Fujimura, Shuzo, 2020. "Car-sharing intention analysis in Japan by comparing the utility of car ownership for car-owners and non-car owners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Prospect dynamics and loss dominance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-124.
    10. Ramiah, Vikash & Xu, Xiaoming & Moosa, Imad A., 2015. "Neoclassical finance, behavioral finance and noise traders: A review and assessment of the literature," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 89-100.
    11. 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.
    12. Satakhun Kosavinta & Donyaprueth Krairit & Do Ba Khang, 2017. "Decision making in the pre-development stage of residential development," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 160-183, March.
    13. Kairiza, Terrence & Kembo, George & Chigusiwa, Lloyd, 2023. "Herding behavior in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in rural Zimbabwe: The moderating role of health information under heterogeneous household risk perceptions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    14. Giné, Xavier & Goldberg, Jessica, 2023. "Experience in financial decision-making: Field evidence from Malawi," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. Cappelletti, Dominique & Mittone, Luigi & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Are default contributions sticky? An experimental analysis of defaults in public goods provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 331-342.
    16. Steven G. Medema, 2020. "The Coase Theorem at Sixty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1045-1128, December.
    17. Hoffmann, Sandra A. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2005. "Torts and the Protection of "Legally Recognized" Interests," Discussion Papers 10472, Resources for the Future.
    18. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D L Howe, 2019. "Conformity to the descriptive norms of people with opposing political or social beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Rogers, Todd & Bazerman, Max H., 2008. "Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of 'should' choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Song, Jingjing & Bi, Xiuchun & Li, Rong & Zhang, Shuguang, 2017. "Optimal consumption and portfolio selection problems under loss aversion with downside consumption constraints," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 299(C), pages 80-94.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.