IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v353y2024ics0277953624004799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US black women’s pregnancy communication networks: A qualitative network analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Adekunle, Tiwaladeoluwa B.

Abstract

The ongoing Black maternal health crisis necessitates a closer examination of how Black women in the United States utilize communication to mitigate the dangers racism poses for pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of supportive networks to Black women's wellbeing during pregnancy. However, few studies utilize a qualitative network approach to explore communication about pregnancy and related risks within a social network. Twenty-eight Black women from 12 US states who self-identified as previously, currently or recently pregnant, were recruited to participate in this study. Following data collection, participants' networks and related commentary from the interview were qualitatively analyzed for composition and context of networks (who is in the network and why?) and the content of communication (what is discussed and how?). This study found that Black women's perceptions of pregnancy risk and enactment of agency in response to risk was influenced by communication with individuals within their communication networks. The findings of this study also demonstrate that emotional support and guidance for navigating the dangers of the healthcare system constituted an important component of communication with strong ties, including partners, family members and close friends. Additionally, Black women enacted agency in response to pregnancy risk by leaning on trusted experts (healthcare providers) within their networks. However, this study also found limitations to the role of pregnancy communication networks. First, negative ties (relations) with alters (individuals with whom Black women have communication ties) and unwanted advice or guidance was found to be a source of stress. Furthermore, although mothers were an essential source of support for many women, differences related to generation, culture and the circumstances of pregnancy limited the relevance of the advice Black women receive from their mothers. Finally, immigrant women faced an additional challenge, as their support networks were sometimes geographically distant from them.

Suggested Citation

  • Adekunle, Tiwaladeoluwa B., 2024. "US black women’s pregnancy communication networks: A qualitative network analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:353:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624004799
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624004799
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117028?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. Vanessa, Grotti & Cynthia, Malakasis & Chiara, Quagliariello & Nina, Sahraoui, 2019. "Temporalities of emergency: Migrant pregnancy and healthcare networks in Southern European borderlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. McLemore, Monica R. & Altman, Molly R. & Cooper, Norlissa & Williams, Shanell & Rand, Larry & Franck, Linda, 2018. "Health care experiences of pregnant, birthing and postnatal women of color at risk for preterm birth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 127-135.
    4. John Skvoretz & Filip Agneessens, 2007. "Reciprocity, Multiplexity, and Exchange: Measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 341-357, June.
    5. Violet T. Ho & Laurie L. Levesque, 2005. "With a Little Help from My Friends (and Substitutes): Social Referents and Influence in Psychological Contract Fulfillment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 275-289, June.
    6. Alis Oancea & Teresa Florez Petour & Jeanette Atkinson, 2017. "Qualitative network analysis tools for the configurative articulation of cultural value and impact from research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 302-315.
    7. Harley, Kim & Eskenazi, Brenda, 2006. "Time in the United States, social support and health behaviors during pregnancy among women of Mexican descent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(12), pages 3048-3061, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    2. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    3. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    4. Crespo, Joan & Réquier-Desjardins, Denis & Vicente, Jérôme, 2014. "Why can collective action fail in Local Agri-food Systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 165-177.
    5. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    6. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. repec:pri:crcwel:wp08-15-ff is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    9. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    11. Xaver Neumeyer & Susana C. Santos & Michael H. Morris, 2019. "Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 462-484, April.
    12. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    13. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    14. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    15. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    16. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    17. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    18. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    19. Kévin Nadarajah & Laurent Brun & Stéphanie Bordel & Emeline Ah-Tchine & Anissa Dumesnil & Antoine Marques Mourato & Jacques Py & Laurent Jammes & Xavier Arnauld De Sartre & Alain Somat, 2024. "A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO 2 Geological Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, February.
    20. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    21. Harry Otway & Brian Wynne, 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 141-145, June.

    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:socmed:v:353:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624004799. 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.