Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011362

Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DCValorLengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorConesa Ferrer, María Belén-
dc.contributor.authorCanteras Jordana, Manuel-
dc.contributor.authorBallesteros Meseguer, Carmen-
dc.contributor.authorCarrillo García, César-
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Roche, María Emilia-
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-29T11:47:55Z-
dc.date.available2024-12-29T11:47:55Z-
dc.date.issued2021-06-21-
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open, 2016, Vol. 6, N. 8 : e011362es
dc.identifier.issnElectronic: 2044-6055-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10201/147868-
dc.description© 2016 by the authors. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This document is the Published version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in BMJ Open. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011362-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To describe the differences in obstetrical results and women’s childbirth satisfaction across 2 different models of maternity care (biomedical model and humanised birth). Setting: 2 university hospitals in south-eastern Spain from April to October 2013. Design: A correlational descriptive study. Participants: A convenience sample of 406 women participated in the study, 204 of the biomedical model and 202 of the humanised model. Results: The differences in obstetrical results were (biomedical model/humanised model): onset of labour (spontaneous 66/137, augmentation 70/1, p=0.0005), pain relief (epidural 172/132, no pain relief 9/40, p=0.0005), mode of delivery (normal vaginal 140/165, instrumental 48/23, p=0.004), length of labour (0–4 hours 69/93, >4 hours 133/108, p=0.011), condition of perineum (intact perineum or tear 94/178, episiotomy 100/24, p=0.0005). The total questionnaire score (100) gave a mean (M) of 78.33 and SD of 8.46 in the biomedical model of care and an M of 82.01 and SD of 7.97 in the humanised model of care (p=0.0005). In the analysis of the results per items, statistical differences were found in 8 of the 9 subscales. The highest scores were reached in the humanised model of maternity care. Conclusions: The humanised model of maternity care offers better obstetrical outcomes and women’s satisfaction scores during the labour, birth and immediate postnatal period than does the biomedical model.es
dc.formatapplication/pdfes
dc.format.extent10es
dc.languageenges
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group-
dc.relationSin financiación externa a la Universidades
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subjectWoman’s satisfactiones
dc.subjectBiomedical model-
dc.subjectHumanized childbirth-
dc.subjectMidwife-
dc.titleComparative study analysing women’s childbirth satisfaction and obstetric outcomes across two different models of maternity carees
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/8/e011362-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011362-
dc.contributor.departmentDepartamento de Enfermería-
Aparece en las colecciones:Artículos

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción TamañoFormato 
e011362.full.pdfComparative study analysing women’s childbirth satisfaction and obstetric outcomes across two different models of maternity care878,28 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir


Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons