↓ Skip to main content

Paradox of the institution: findings from a hospital labour ward ethnography

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Paradox of the institution: findings from a hospital labour ward ethnography
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1193-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth C Newnham, Lois V McKellar, Jan I Pincombe

Abstract

Interest in the influence of culture on birth practices is on the rise, and with it comes a sense of urgency to implement practices that aid the normalisation and humanisation of birth. This groundswell is occurring despite a broader cultural milieu of escalating technology-use and medicalisation of birth across the globe. Against this background, rates of epidural analgesia use by women in labour are increasing, despite the risk of side effects. Socio-cultural norms and beliefs are likely to influence pain relief choices but there is currently scant research on this topic. This study was undertaken to gain insight into the personal, social, cultural and institutional influences on women in deciding whether or not to use epidural analgesia in labour. The study had an ethnographic approach within a theoretical framework of Critical Medical Anthropology (CMA), Foucauldian and feminist theory. Given the nature of ethnographic research, it was assumed that using the subject of epidural analgesia to gain insight into Western birth practices could illuminate broader cultural ideals and that the epidural itself may not remain the focus of the research. Findings from the study showed how institutional surveillance, symbolised by the Journey Board led to an institutional momentum that in its attempt to keep women safe actually introduced new areas of risk, a situation which we named the Paradox of the institution. These findings, showing a risk/safety paradox at the centre of institutionalised birth, add a qualitative dimension to the growing number of quantitative studies asserting that acute medical settings can be detrimental to normal birth practices and outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Unspecified 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 35%
Social Sciences 9 23%
Unspecified 8 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,201,752
of 12,607,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#351
of 2,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,348
of 365,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#48
of 300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,607,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.