IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of risk and influences of choice in pregnant women with obesity. An evidence synthesis of qualitative research

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Relph
  • Melissa Ong
  • Matias C Vieira
  • Dharmintra Pasupathy
  • Jane Sandall

Abstract

Background: Between 7–35% of the maternity population are obese in high income countries and 1–40% in lower or middle-income countries. Women with obesity are traditionally limited by the choices available to them during pregnancy and birth because of the higher risk of complications. This evidence synthesis set out to summarise how women with obesity’s perceptions of pregnancy and birth risk influence the care choices that they make. Methods: A search of medical and health databases for qualitative studies written in the English language, published Jan 1993—April 2019 and reporting on pregnant women with obesity’s perception of risk and influence of pregnancy and birth choices. Data was extracted by two reviewers onto a questions framework and then analysed using a thematic synthesis technique. Confidence in the qualitative findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. Results: 23 full texts were included. The common themes on perception of risk were: ‘Self-blame arising from others’ stereotyped beliefs ‘, ‘Normalisation’, ‘Lack of preparation’, ‘Fearful acceptance and inevitability’ and ‘Baby prioritised over mother’. For influence of choices, the themes were: ‘External influences from personal stresses’, ‘Restrictive guidelines’, ‘Relationship with healthcare professional’ and ‘Perception of Risk’. Conclusions: Evidence on what influences women with obesity’s pregnancy choices is limited. Further research is needed on the best methods to discuss the risks of pregnancy and birth for women with obesity in a sensitive and acceptable manner and to identify the key influences when women with obesity make choices antenatally and for birth planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Relph & Melissa Ong & Matias C Vieira & Dharmintra Pasupathy & Jane Sandall, 2020. "Perceptions of risk and influences of choice in pregnant women with obesity. An evidence synthesis of qualitative research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227325
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227325
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227325&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227325?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0227325. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.