↓ Skip to main content

Priorities and strategies for improving disabled women’s access to maternity services when they are affected by domestic abuse: a multi-method study using concept maps

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Priorities and strategies for improving disabled women’s access to maternity services when they are affected by domestic abuse: a multi-method study using concept maps
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0786-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Bradbury-Jones, Jenna P. Breckenridge, John Devaney, Fiona Duncan, Thilo Kroll, Anne Lazenbatt, Julie Taylor

Abstract

Domestic abuse is a significant public health issue. It occurs more frequently among disabled women than those without a disability and evidence suggests that a great deal of domestic abuse begins or worsens during pregnancy. All women and their infants are entitled to equal access to high quality maternity care. However, research has shown that disabled women who experience domestic abuse face numerous barriers to accessing care. The aim of the study was to identify the priority areas for improving access to maternity services for this group of women; develop strategies for improved access and utilisation; and explore the feasibility of implementing the identified strategies. This multi-method study was the third and final part of a larger study conducted in the UK between 2012 and 2014. The study used a modified concept mapping approach and was theoretically underpinned by Andersen's model of healthcare use. Seven focus group interviews were conducted with a range of maternity care professionals (n = 45), incorporating quantitative and qualitative components. Participants ranked perceived barriers to women's access and utilisation of maternity services in order of priority using a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative data exploration used descriptive and non-parametric analyses. In the qualitative component of each focus group, participants discussed the barriers and identified potential improvement strategies (and feasibility of implementing these). Qualitative data were analysed inductively using a framework analysis approach. The three most highly ranked barriers to women's access and utilisation of maternity services identified in the quantitative component were: 1) staff being unaware and not asking about domestic abuse and disability; 2) the impact of domestic abuse on women; 3) women's fear of disclosure. The top two priority strategies were: providing information about domestic abuse to all women and promoting non-judgemental staff attitude. These were also considered very feasible. The qualitative analysis identified a range of psychosocial and environmental barriers experienced by this group of women in accessing maternity care. Congruent with the quantitative results, the main themes were lack of awareness and fear of disclosure. Key strategies were identified as demystifying disclosure and creating physical spaces to facilitate disclosure. The study supports findings of previous research regarding the barriers that women face in accessing and utilising maternity services, particularly regarding the issue of disclosure. But the study provides new evidence on the perceived importance and feasibility of strategies to address such barriers. This is an important step in ensuring practice-based acceptability and ease with which improvement strategies might be implemented in maternity care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Psychology 12 9%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 May 2022.
All research outputs
#6,672,395
of 24,323,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,822
of 4,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,216
of 401,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#30
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 401,299 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.