IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v93y2009i1p27-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search 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. 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.
    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 52-11, January.
    6. 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.
    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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    11. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Wim Groot & Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink, 2006. "The compensating income variation of cardiovascular disease," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1143-1148, October.
    13. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    14. Ólafsdóttir, Thorhildur & Ásgeirsdóttir, Tinna Laufey & Norton, Edward C., 2020. "Valuing pain using the subjective well-being method," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    15. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    17. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Ferry Efendi & Ching-Min Chen & Nursalam Nursalam & Nurul Wachyu Fitriyah Andriyani & Anna Kurniati & Susan Alison Nancarrow, 2016. "How to attract health students to remote areas in Indonesia: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 430-445, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    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.