IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v93y2009i1p27-34.html

The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management

Author

Listed:
  • Pavlova, Milena
  • Hendrix, Marijke
  • Nouwens, Elvira
  • Nijhuis, Jan
  • van Merode, Godefridus

Abstract

In the Netherlands, pregnant women at low risk of complications during pregnancy, have the opportunity to choose freely between giving birth at home or in a hospital maternity unit. This study analyses how various attributes of obstetric care, socio-economic characteristics and attitudes influence the decisions that these women make with regard to obstetric care. The method of discrete-choice experiment was applied in the process of data collection and analysis. The data were collected among low-risk nulliparous pregnant women. The analysis suggests that there are strong preferences among some Dutch women for a home birth. Nevertheless, the absence of a medical pain-relief treatment during home birth, might provide incentives for some women to opt for a birth in a hospital, especially at the end of their pregnancy. If the attractiveness of home birth should be preserved in the Netherlands, specific attention should be paid on the approach to pain during a home birth. Efforts could also be made in offering a domestic atmosphere during hospital births to improve hospital-based obstetric care in view of women's preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:93:y:2009:i:1:p:27-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(09)00137-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Martine M. Bellanger & Zeynep Or, 2008. "What can we learn from a cross‐country comparison of the costs of child delivery?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(S1), pages 47-57, January.
    3. Wiegers, T. A. & van der Zee, J. & Kerssens, J. J. & Keirse, M. J. N. C., 1998. "Home birth or short-stay hospital birth in a low risk population in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(11), pages 1505-1511, January.
    4. Edwin van Teijlingen & Sirpa Wrede & Cecilia Benoit & Jane Sandall & Raymond DeVries, 2009. "Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in Maternity Care Organisation among High-Income Countries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(42), pages 52-11, January.
    5. Edwin van Teijlingen & Sirpa Wrede & Cecilia Benoit & Jane Sandall & Raymond DeVries, 2009. "Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in Maternity Care Organisation among High-Income Countries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(42), pages 42-52, January.
    6. Michael Veall & Klaus Zimmermann, 1994. "Evaluating Pseudo-R 2 's for binary probit models," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 151-164, May.
    7. Wim Groot & Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink & Erik Plug, 2004. "Money for health: the equivalent variation of cardiovascular diseases," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 859-872, September.
    8. De Vries, Raymond & Lemmens, Trudo, 2006. "The social and cultural shaping of medical evidence: Case studies from pharmaceutical research and obstetric science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2694-2706, June.
    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 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.
    2. Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Niels Uldbjerg & Rikke Søgaard, 2018. "Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(6), pages 613-624, December.
    3. Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskytė & Helen L. Ford & Hilary L. Bekker & Jeremy Chataway & George Pepper & Joachim Marti & Yasmina Okan & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2020. "The Impact of Reproductive Issues on Preferences of Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis for Disease-Modifying Treatments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 583-597, October.
    4. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    5. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.

    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. Miller, Amy Chasteen & Shriver, Thomas E., 2012. "Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 709-716.
    2. 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.
    3. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    4. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    5. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    6. Simon Gwara & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo & Chris Buckley, 2020. "Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    7. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    8. Kapteyn, Arie & Kleinjans, Kristin J. & van Soest, Arthur, 2009. "Intertemporal consumption with directly measured welfare functions and subjective expectations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 425-437, October.
    9. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    10. N. Meltem Daysal & Mircea Trandafir & Reyn van Ewijk, 2015. "Saving Lives at Birth: The Impact of Home Births on Infant Outcomes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 28-50, July.
    11. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    12. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    13. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    14. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2020. "Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1364-1377, November.
    15. Agnew, Scott & Dargusch, Paul, 2017. "Consumer preferences for household-level battery energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 609-617.
    16. Krishna D Rao & Mandy Ryan & Zubin Shroff & Marko Vujicic & Sudha Ramani & Peter Berman, 2013. "Rural Clinician Scarcity and Job Preferences of Doctors and Nurses in India: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-9, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    19. Oswald, Andrew J. & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2008. "Does happiness adapt? A longitudinal study of disability with implications for economists and judges," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1061-1077, June.
    20. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).

    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:93:y:2009:i:1:p:27-34. 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.