Place of Birth and Concepts of Wellbeing

An Analysis from Two Ethnographic Studies of Midwifery Units in England

in Anthropology in Action
Author:
Christine McCourt University of London Christine.mccourt.1@city.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Christine McCourt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Juliet Rayment University of London Juliet.rayment.1@city.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Juliet Rayment in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Susanna Rance University of East London. s.rance@uel.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Susanna Rance in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Jane Sandall King’s College London Jane.sandall@kcl.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Jane Sandall in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

This article is based on analysis of a series of ethnographic case studies of midwifery units in England. Midwifery units1 are spaces that were developed to provide more home-like and less medically oriented care for birth that would support physiological processes of labour, women’s comfort and a positive experience of birth for women and their families. They are run by midwives, either on a hospital site alongside an obstetric unit (Alongside Midwifery Unit – AMU) or a freestanding unit away from an obstetric unit (Freestanding Midwifery Unit – FMU). Midwifery units have been designed and intended specifically as locations of wellbeing and although the meaning of the term is used very loosely in public discourse, this claim is supported by a large epidemiological study, which found that they provide safe care for babies while reducing use of medical interventions and with better health outcomes for the women. Our research indicated that midwifery units function as a protected space, one which uses domestic features as metaphors of home in order to promote a sense of wellbeing and to re-normalise concepts of birth, which had become inhabited by medical models and a preoccupation with risk. However, we argue that this protected space has a function for midwives as well as for birthing women. Midwifery units are intended to support midwives’ wellbeing following decades of professional struggles to maintain autonomy, midwife-led care2 and a professional identity founded on supporting normal, healthy birth. This development, which is focused on place of birth rather than other aspects of maternity care such as continuity, shows potential for restoring wellbeing on individual, professional and community levels, through improving rates of normal physiological birth and improving experiences of providing and receiving care. Nevertheless, this very focus also poses challenges for health service providers attempting to provide a ‘social model of care’ within an institutional context.

1The term midwifery unit was adopted by the Birthplace research programme in place of the more popular term ‘birth centre’ to avoid ambiguity. In a midwifery unit care is not only provided by mid-wives but is also managed by midwives and does not normally include use of obstetric instruments or interventions. If a woman planning birth in a mid-wifery unit develops obstetric complications, or decides she wishes to have a medical intervention such as epidural pain relief, she is transferred for care to an obstetric unit. Some units called birth centres are not managed by midwives in this way.

2Midwife-led care refers to care where the midwife, rather than an obstetrician or other professional is the lead professional, who takes responsibility for a woman’s maternity care through from pregnancy to postnatal. Following the Changing Childbirth report in 1993, this was re-established as the usual model for women classified as at low risk of pregnancy and birth complications.

Contributor Notes

Christine Mccourt is Professor of Maternal and Child Health at City, University of London. Her key interests are in institutions and service change and reform, women’s experiences of childbirth and in the culture and organisation of maternity care. She has worked over a number of years on applying anthropological theory and methodology to studying healthcare. E-mail: Christine.mccourt.1@city.ac.uk

Juliet Rayment is research fellow in maternal and child health at City, University of London. Her doctoral study focused on emotional labour of midwives, using an ethnographic approach. She is a sociologist with strong interests in inter-disciplinary work that brings together arts, humanities and health sciences. E-mail: Juliet.rayment.1@city.ac.uk

Susanna Rance is a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London. She has an interest in genderstudies, participatory methodologies, and community engagement in research on sexual and reproductive health and rights. E-mail: s.rance@uel.ac.uk

Jane Sandall, CBE, is a NIHR senior investigator and a Professor of Social Science and Women’s Health at King’s College London. E-mail: Jane.sandall@kcl.ac.uk

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Anthropology in Action

Journal for Applied Anthropology in Policy and Practice

  • Birthchoice (2013), ‘Trends in Freestanding Midwife-led Units in England and Wales 2001–2013’, a report by BirthChoice UK for the Royal College of Midwives.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Birthchoice (2015), Number of maternity units in England. Personal communication.

  • Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011), ‘Perinatal and Maternal Outcomes by Planned Place of Birth for Healthy Women with Low Risk Pregnancies: The Birthplace in England National Prospective Cohort Study’, BMJ 343: d7400. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borsay, A. and Hunter, B. eds. 2012. Nursing and Midwifery in Britain since 1700. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Conradson, D. (2005), ‘Landscape, Care and the Relational Self: Therapeutic Encounters in Rural England’, Health & Place 11, no. 4: 33748.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis-Floyd, R. (2001), ‘The Technocratic, Humanistic, and Holistic Paradigms of Childbirth’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 75 Ž2001. S5S23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis-Floyd, R. (2003), ‘Home-birth Emergencies in the US and Mexico: The Trouble with Transport’, Social Science & Medicine 56: 191131.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis-Floyd, R. (2004) Birth as an American Rite of Passage. University if California Press.

  • Davis-Floyd, R. and E. Davis (1996), ‘Intuition as Authoritative Knowledge in Midwifery and Home-birth’, Med Anthropol Q 10: 23769. doi.org/10.1525/maq.1996.10.2.02a00080

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Department of Health (1970). The Report of the Standing Maternity and Midwifery Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council (The Peel Report). Department of Health, HMSO.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Department of Health (1993). Changing Childbirth: Part I: Report of the Expert Maternity Group (Cumberlege Report). London, HMSO.

  • Department of Health (2007), Maternity Matters: Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service (London: HMSO).

  • Dirlik, A. (1999), ‘Place-based Imagination: Globalism and the Politics of Place’, Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 22, no. 2: 15187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Douglas, M. (1992), Risk and Blame, Essays in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge).

  • Douglas, M. [] (1970), Natural Symbols, 2nd edn (London: Routledge).

  • Downe S, McCourt C. (2004) From being to becoming: reconstructing childbirth knowledges: In: Downe S. (Ed.). Normal birth, evidence and debate. Elsevier: Oxford.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Escobar, A. (2001), ‘Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization’, Political Geography 20: 13974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fannin, M. (2003), ‘Domesticating Birth in the Hospital: “Family Centered” Birth and the Emergence of “Homelike” Birthing Rooms’, Antipode 35, no. 3: 51335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Foureur, M., D. Davis, J. Fenwick, N. Leap, R. Iedema, I. Forbes and C. S. Homer (2010), ‘The Relationship Between Birth Unit Design and Safe, Satisfying Birth: Developing a Hypothetical Model’, Midwifery 26, no. 5: 5205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gesler, W. (1992), ‘Therapeutic Landscapes: Medical Issues in Light of the New Cultural Geography’, Social Science & Medicine 34, no. 7: 73546.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gesler, W., M. Bell, S. Curtis, P. Hubbard and S. Francis (2004), ‘Therapy by Design: Evaluating the UK Hospital Building Programme’, Health & Place 10, no. 2: 11728.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gilmour, J. A. (2006). “Hybrid space: constituting the hospital as a home space for patients.” Nursing Inquiry 13(1): 1622.

  • Halford, S. and P. Leonard (2003). “Space and place in the construction and performance of gendered nursing identities.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 42(2): 201208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hausman, B. L. (2005), ‘Risky Business: Framing Child-birth in Hospital Settings’, Journal of Medical Humanities 26, no. 1: 2338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Heagerty, B. (1977), ‘Willing Handmaidens of Science? The Struggle Over the New Midwife in Early Twentieth Century England’, in Reflections on Midwifery, (ed.) M. Kirkham and E. Perkins (London: Baillére-Tindall), 7095.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • House of Commons Health Select Committee (1992). Second Report on the Maternity Services (Winterton Report), HMSO.

  • Hunter, B. (2002). Emotion work in midwifery: an ethnographic study of the emotional work undertaken by a sample of student and qualified midwives in Wales. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Swansea, University of Wales.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hunter, M. (2003). Autonomy, clinical freedom and responsibility. Birth Centres: A Social Model for Maternity Care. M. Kirkham. London, Books for Mid-wives: 239248.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hunter, B. & Deery, R. (2009) (eds) Emotions in Mid-wifery and Reproduction, Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Jordan, B. (1993), Birth in Four Cultures: A Cross-cultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden and the United States (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirkham, M. (ed.) (2003), Birth Centres: A Social Model for Maternity Care (London: Books for Midwives), 23948.

  • Lane, K. (1995), ‘The Medical Model of the Body as a Site of Risk’, in Medicine, Health and Risk: Sociological Approaches, (ed.) J. Gabe (Oxford: Blackwell), 5372.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lankston, L., P. Cusack, C. Fremantle and C. Isles (2010), ‘Visual Art in Hospitals: Case Studies and Review of the Evidence’, J R Soc Med 103, no. 12: 49099.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leap, N. and B. Hunter (2013), The Midwife’s Tale: An Oral History from Handy Women to Professional Mid-wife (London: Pen and Sword Books).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ledward, A. (1996). Retention and autonomy in midwifery practice. Ethics and Midwifery: Issues in contemporary practice. L. Frith. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Long, D., C. L. Hunter and S. van der Geest (2008), ‘When the Field is a Ward or a Clinic: Hospital Ethnography’, Anthropology & Medicine 15, no. 2: 718.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Macfarlane, A. and Mugford, M. (2000) Birth Counts: Statistics of Pregnancy and Childbirth, The Stationery Office, London.

  • MacKenzie Bryers,, H. and E. van Teijlingen (2010) Risk, theory, social and medical models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery 26 (5): 488496

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Martin, E. (1989), The Woman in the Body (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).

  • McCourt, C. (1998), ‘Concepts of Community in Changing Healthcare’, in Anthropology of Welfare (ed.) I. Edgar and A. Russell (London: Routledge), 3356.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCourt, C., S. Rance, J. Rayment and J. Sandall (2011), Birthplace Qualitative Organisational Case Studies: How Maternity Care Systems May Affect the Provision of Care in Different Birth Settings. Birthplace in England Research Programme. Final Report part 6. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/84950/FR6-08-1604-140.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCourt, C., J. Rayment, S. Rance and J. Sandall (2014), ‘An Ethnographic Organisational Study of Alongside Midwifery Units: A Follow-on Study From the Birthplace in England Programme’, Health Services and Delivery Research 2, no. 7. doi: 10.3310/hsdr02XX. http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/volume-2/issue-7

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mitchie, H. (1998), ‘Confinements: The Domestic in the Discourses of Upper-middle-class Pregnancy’, in Making Worlds, (ed.) S. H. Aiken, A. Brigham, S. A. Marston, P. Waterston (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 25873.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rayment, J. (2011), ‘Midwives’ emotion and body work in two hospital settings: Personal strategies and professional projects’. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Warwick.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ritzer, G. (2008), The McDonaldization of Society (Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press), 35184.

  • Sandall, J. (1996). “Continuity of Midwifery Care in England: A New Professional Project?Gender, Work and Organization 3(4): 215226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaw, R. and C. Kitzinger (2005). “Calls to a home birth helpline: Empowerment in childbirth.” Social Science & Medicine 61(11): 23742383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Viisainen, K. (2000), ‘The Moral Dangers of Home Birth: Parents’ Perceptions of Risks in Home Birth in Finland’, Sociology of Health and Illness 22, no. 6: 792814.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Walsh, D. (2006), ‘Subverting Assembly-line Birth: Childbirth in a Free-standing Birth Center’, Social Science & Medicine 62: 133040. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Willcocks, D., S. Peace and L. Kelleher (1986), Private Lives in Public Places: Research-based Critique of Residential Life in Local Authority Old People’s Homes (London: Routledge).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilson, A. (1995), The Making of Man Midwifery: Child-birth in England 1660–1770 (Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press).

  • Witz, A. (1992), Professions and Patriarchy (London: Routledge).

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1758 1057 188
Full Text Views 2058 22 2
PDF Downloads 1193 22 4