Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 11, pp 2384–2392 | Cite as

Afraid of Delivering at the Hospital or Afraid of Delivering at Home: A Qualitative Study of Thai Hmong Families’ Decision-Making About Maternity Services

  • Kathleen A. Culhane-PeraEmail author
  • Sarinya Sriphetcharawut
  • Rasamee Thawsirichuchai
  • Wirachon Yangyuenkun
  • Peter Kunstadter
Article

Abstract

Thailand has high rates of maternity services; both antenatal care (ANC) and hospital delivery are widely used by its citizens. A recent Northern Thailand survey showed that Hmong women used maternity services at lower rates. Our objectives were to identify Hmong families’ socio-cultural reasons for using and not using maternity services, and suggest ways to improve Hmong women’s use of maternity services. In one Hmong village, we classified all 98 pregnancies in the previous 5 years into four categories: no ANC/home birth, ANC/home, no ANC/hospital, ANC/hospital. We conducted life-history case studies of 4 women from each category plus their 12 husbands, and 17 elders. We used grounded theory to guide qualitative analysis. Families not using maternity services considered pregnancy a normal process that only needed traditional home support. In addition, they disliked institutional processes that interfered with cultural birth practices, distrusted discriminatory personnel, and detested invasive, involuntary hospital procedures. Families using services perceived physical needs or potential delivery risks that could benefit from obstetrical assistance not available at home. While they disliked aspects of hospital births, they tolerated these conditions for access to obstetrical care they might need. Families also considered cost, travel distance, and time as structural issues. The families ultimately balanced their fear of delivering at home with their fear of delivering at the hospital. Providing health education about pregnancy risks, and changing healthcare practices to accommodate Hmong people’s desires for culturally-appropriate family-centered care, which are consistent with evidence-based obstetrics, might improve Hmong women’s use of maternity services.

Keywords

Maternity Decision-making Prenatal care Hospitals Culture Traditional birth attendant Home childbirth Thailand Hmong 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding from Fulbright Scholarship, ThailandUnited States Educational Foundation (Fulbright), Oxfam (UK); Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and Generosity in Action. Conclusions are those of the authors. Thanks to Sophie LeCoeur MD, PhD, co-investigator of Access to Care in Communities, Program for HIV Prevention and Treatment, Chiang Mai, Institute de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD), France, and Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand (UMI 474-PHPT). Special thanks to the Hmong villagers who participated in research study, and William Ventres MD and Sonia Patten PhD for reading prior drafts.

References

  1. 1.
    Shiferaw, S., Spigt, M., Godefrooij, M., Melkamu, Y., & Tekie, M. (2013). Why do women prefer home births in Ethiopia? BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13, 5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sychareun, V., Hansana, V., Somphet, V., Xayavong, S., Phengsavanh, A., & Popenoe, R. (2012). Reasons rural Laotians choose home deliveries over delivery at health facilities: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 12, 86. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Titaley, C. R., Hunter, C. L., Dibley, M. J., & Heywood, P. (2010). Why do some women still prefer traditional birth attendants and home delivery?: a qualitative study on delivery care services in West Java Province Indonesia. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 10, 43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-485.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsegay, Y., Gebrehiwot, T., Goicolea, I., Edin, K., Lemma, H., & San Sebastian, M. (2013). Determinants of antenatal and delivery care utilization in Tigray region, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12, 30. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-12-30.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gabrysch, S., & Campbell, O. M. R. (2009). Still too far to walk: Literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 9, 34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-34.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Say, L., & Raine, R. (2007). A systematic review of inequalities in the use of maternal health care in developing countries: examining the scale of the problem and the importance of context. Bulletin World Health Organization, 85, 812–819. doi: 10.2471/BLT.06.035659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen, E. R., Porter, M., & Simkhada, P. (2007). Factors affecting the utilization of antenatal care in developing countries: systematic review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(3), 244–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04532.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kongsri, S., Limwattananon, S., Sirilak, S., Prakongsai, P., & Tangcharoensathien, V. (2011). Equity of access to and utilization of reproductive health services in Thailand: National Reproductive Health Survey data, 2006 and 2009. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(37), 86–97. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(11)37569-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunstadter, P. (2013). Ethnicity, socioeconomic characteristics, and knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about HIV among Yunnanese Chinese, Hmong, Lahu and Northern Thai in a North-western Thailand border district. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 15(Suppl 3), S383–S400. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2013.814807.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culhane-Pera, K. A., Sriphetcharawut, S., Thawsirichuchai, R., Yangyuenkun, W., & Kunstadter, P. (2014). Crossing borders in birthing practices: A Hmong village in Northern Thailand (1987–2013). Hmong Studies Journal, 15(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wibulpolprasert, S. (ed.). (2013). Thailand Health Profile 2008-2010. Bureau of Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health. Bangkok: Thailand. http://www.moph.go.th/ops/thp/thp/en/index.php?id=288&group_=05&page=view_doc. Accessed 22 June 2014.
  12. 12.
    Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (Eds.). (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finlayson, K., & Downe, S. (2013). Why do women not use antenatal services in low- and middle-income countries? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. PLoS Medicine, 10(1), e1001373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.101373.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. (2009). Baby-friendly hospital initiative: Revised, updated, and expanded for integrated care. Section 2:Strengthening and sustaining the baby-friendly hospital initiative: a course for decision-makers. WHO, UNICEF, and Wellstart International. Geneva: WHO press. http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/files/BFHI_section_2_2009_eng.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2014.
  15. 15.
    Carroli, G., & Mignini, L. (2009). Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 2, CD000081. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD00081.pub2.Review.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bowser, D., & Hill, K. (2010). Exploring evidence for disrespect and abuse in facility-based childbirth: report of a landscape analysis. USAID-TRAction Project: Harvard School of Public Health University Research Co, LLC. 2010:1–57. http://www.mhtf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2013/02/Respectful_Care_at_Birth_9-20-101_Final.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2014.
  17. 17.
    Ho, J. J., Pattanittum, P., Japaraj, R. P., Turner, T., Swadpanich, U., Crowther, C. A., & SEA-ORCHID Study Group. (2010). Influence of training in the use and generation of evidence on episiotomy practice and perineal trauma. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 111(1), 13–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.04.035.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Festin, M. R., Laopaiboon, M., Pattanittum, P., Ewens, M. R., Henderson-Smart, D. J., Crowther, C. A., & SEA-ORCHID Study Group. (2009). Cesarean section in four South East Asian countries: reasons for, rates, associated care practices and health outcomes. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 9, 17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Souza, J. P., Taneepanichskul, S., Ruyan, P., et al. (2010). Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–2008. Lancet, 375(490–9), 2010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5. (Erratum in Lancet. 2010;376:1902).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charoenboon, C., Srisupundit, K., & Tongsong, T. (2013). Rise in cesarean section rate over a 20-year period in a public sector hospital in northern Thailand. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 287, 47–52. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2531-z.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (2014). Obstetric care consensus No. 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123, 693–711. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000444441.04111.1d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Souza, J. P., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Carroli, G., Fawole, B., & Ruyan, P. (2010). Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short- term maternal outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Medicine, 8, 71. doi: 10.1086/1741-7015-8-71.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hodnett, E. D., Gates, S., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Sakala, C. (2013). Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 2, CD003766. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CDC003766.pub5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yuenyong, S., Jirapaet, V., & O’Brien, B. A. (2008). Support from a close female relative in labour: The ideal maternity nursing intervention in Thailand. Journal of Medical Association of Thailand, 91(2), 253–260.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization. (2009). Integrated management of pregnancy and childbirth: WHO recommended interventions for improving maternal and newborn health. Geneva: WHO press; 2009. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2007/who_mps_07.05_eng.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2014.
  26. 26.
    Chunuan, S., Somsap, Y., Pinjaroen, S., Thitimapong, S., Nangham, S., & Ongpalanupat, F. (2009). Effect of the presence of family members, during the first stage of labor, on childbirth outcomes in a province hospital in Songkhla Province, Thailand. Thai Journal of Nursing Research, 13(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liamputtong, P. (2004). Giving birth in the hospital: Childbirth experiences of Thai women in Northern Thailand. Health Care for Women International, 25, 454–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yuenyong, S., O’Brien, B. A., & Jirapaet, V. (2012). Effects of labor support from close female relative on labor and maternal satisfaction in a Thai setting. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Neonatal Nursing, 41(1), 45–56. doi: 10.1111/j/1552-6909.2011.01311.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    d’Oliveira, A. F., Diniz, S. G., & Schraiber, L. B. (2002). Violence against women in health-care institutions: an emerging problem. Lancet, 359(9318), 1681–1685.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liamputtong, P. (2005). Birth and social class: Northern Thai women’s lived experiences of caesarean and vaginal birth. Sociology of Health & Illness, 7(2), 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whittaker, A. (1999). Birth and the postpartum in Northeast Thailand: contesting modernity and tradition. Medical Anthropology, 18(3), 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Crozier, K., Chotiga, P., & Pfeil, M. (2013). Factors influencing HIV screening decisions for pregnant migrant women in South East Asia. Midwifery, 29(7), e57–e63. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.08.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Langer, A., Horton, R., & Chalamilla, G. (2013). A manifesto for maternal health post-2015 Comment. Lancet, 318(9867), 601–602. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60259-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    CARE USA. (2012). Learning, sharing, adapting: innovations in maternal health programming. http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/MH-2012-Learning-Sharing-Adopting.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2014.
  35. 35.
    United Nations Population Fund, International Confederation of Midwives, and World Health Organization (2014). The state of the world’s midwifery 2014: A universal pathway. A woman’s right to health. http://unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2014/SoWMy-Report-English-rev2.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Side Community Health ServicesSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Occupational Therapy Department, Faculty of Associated Medical SciencesChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  3. 3.Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMI 174-Program for HIV Prevention and Treatment (PHPT)Chiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations