↓ Skip to main content

Talking about intimate partner violence in multi-cultural antenatal care: a qualitative study of pregnant women’s advice for better communication in South-East Norway

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Talking about intimate partner violence in multi-cultural antenatal care: a qualitative study of pregnant women’s advice for better communication in South-East Norway
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1308-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Maria Garnweidner-Holme, Mirjam Lukasse, Miriam Solheim, Lena Henriksen

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women constitutes a major public health problem. Antenatal care is considered a window of opportunity to disclose and to communicate about IPV. However, little is known about how women from different ethnic backgrounds wish to communicate about their experiences with IPV during pregnancy in antenatal care. The aim of the present study was to explore how women from different ethnic backgrounds experienced IPV and what their recommendations were about how midwives should communicate about IPV in antenatal care. Qualitative individual interviews with eight women who had experienced IPV during pregnancy were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. The participants were purposively recruited from three crisis shelters in South-East Norway. The participants either had immigrant backgrounds (n = 5) or were ethnic Norwegians (n = 3). All participants received antenatal care by a midwife. Although none of the participants were asked about IPV during antenatal care, they wished to talk about their experiences. Most participants felt that it would be important for the midwife to make them aware that they were victims of violence. Participants offered different suggestions on how and when midwives should talk about IPV. Facilitators to talk about IPV with the midwife were a good relationship with and the trustworthiness of the midwife, information about possible negative health outcomes for the newborn owing to IPV and knowing that the midwife could help them. The main barriers to talk about IPV with the midwife were that the participants were accompanied by their husbands during antenatal care, fear that the Child Welfare Service would take away their children after disclosure and cultural acceptance of violence. Participants with immigrant backgrounds also experienced difficulties in talking about IPV owing to their limited language skills. They thought that professionally trained interpreters with experience of IPV could overcome this barrier. Even though none of the participants were asked about IPV in antenatal care, they offered different suggestions on how and when midwives should talk about IPV. Participants irrespective of their ethnical backgrounds perceived antenatal care as a key area to facilitate disclosure of IPV. Midwives' communication and strategic skills to address IPV are crucial for help-seeking women. Training midwives' skills in culture-sensitive communication might help to overcome cultural barriers to talk about violence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Researcher 15 7%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 71 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 15%
Social Sciences 20 10%
Psychology 16 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 73 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,297,432
of 25,233,554 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,531
of 4,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,370
of 316,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#42
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,233,554 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.