Les associations d’usagers dans le domaine de la périnatalité : un engagement fondé sur la connaissance ?

Childbirth organisations: toward an evidence-based activism?

Résumé

Au travers de l’analyse des activités de trois associations, nous montrons le rôle central que joue la collecte, la production et la circulation des connaissances dans ces organisations: ces activités sont cruciales pour construire une représentation des usagers, pour créer un espace d’échange et de négociation avec les professionnels, et pour faire émerger des problèmes et les rendre discutables par l’ensemble des parties concernées. Elles contribuent ainsi à installer les associations comme acteurs de plein droit dans la politique périnatale.

Abstract

Through the analysis of three users’ organisations, we demonstrate the importance of activities such as the collection, production and dissemination of knowledge in the functioning of these organisations: they are crucial in building users’ representations, in creating a space for exchange and negociation with professionals and in setting up « matters of concern » and their publics. Thus, they contribute to install users’ organisations as full participants to the childbirth politics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Références

  1. 1.

    Borkman T (1976) Experiential knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Soc Serv Rev 50:445–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Epstein S (1995) The construction of lay expertise: aids activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. STHV 20:408–437

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Barbot J (2002) Les malades en mouvements: la médecine et la science à l’épreuve du sida. Balland, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rabeharisoa V (2003) The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the “partnership model” of patient organisation. Soc Sci Med 57:2127–2136

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Arney WR, Neill J (1982) The location of pain in childbirth: natural childbirth and the transformation of obstetrics. Sociology of Health and Illness 4:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Beckett K (2005) Choosing cesarean: feminism and the politics of childbirth in the united states. Feminist Theory 6:251–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Weiner LY (1994) Reconstructing motherhood: the la leche league in postwar America. The Journal of American History 80:1357–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Beckett K, Hoffman B (2005) Challenging medicine: law, resistance, and the cultural politics of childbirth. Law Soc Rev 39:125–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Annandale EC, Judith (1996) What is gender? Feminist theory and the sociology of human reproduction. Sociology of Health & Illness 18:17–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Badinter E (2010) Le conflit: la femme et la mère. Flammarion, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Darra S (2009) “Normal”, “natural”, “good” or “good-enough” birth: examining the concepts. Nursing Inquiry 16:297–305

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Halfon S (2010) Encountering birth: negotiating expertise, networks, and my STS self. Sci Cult 19:61–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Murphy-Lawless J (1998) Reading birth and death. a history of obstetric thinking. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Reiger K, Dempsey R (2006) Performing birth in a culture of fear: an embodied crisis of late modernity. Health Soc Rev 15:364–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Reiger K (2000) Reconceiving citizenship: The challenge of mothers as political activists. Feminist Theory 1:309–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Firestone S (1970) The dialectic of sex: the case for feminist revolution. William Morrow, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Crossley ML (2007) Childbirth, complications and the illusion of “choice”: a case study. Feminism Psychology 17(4):543–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hensley Owens K (2009) Confronting rhetorical disability: a critical analysis of women’s birth plans. Written Communication 26: 247–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McAra-Couper J, Jones M, Smythe L (2012) Caesarean-section, my body, my choice: The construction of “informed choice” in relation to intervention in childbirth. Feminism & Psychology 22:81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Shaw R (2002) The ethics of the birth plan in childbirth management practices. Feminist Theory 3:131–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Craven C (2007) A “Consumer’s Right” to choose a midwife: shifting meanings for reproductive rights under neoliberalism. American Anthropologist 109:701–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Beech B (2011) Challenging the medicalisation of birth. AIMS Journal 23 http://aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol23No2/challengingmedicalisation.htm (accès le 10 août 2012)

  23. 23.

    Goer H (2003) “Spin Doctoring” the research. Birth 30:124–129

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Phan E (2010) La remise en cause de pratiques médicales professionnelles de la part des usagers de la périnatalité. Rev méd périnat 2:91–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zwelling E (2002) Activist for change: an interview with Suzanne Arms. JPE 11:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Akrich M (2010) From communities of practice to epistemic communities: health mobilizations on the internet. Sociological Research Online 15: Epub

  27. 27.

    Allsop J, Jones K, Baggott R (2004) Health consumer groups in the UK: a new social movement? Sociology of Health and Illness 26:737–756

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Graham ID (1998) Processes of change in obstetrics: a crossnational case-study of episiotomy. Health 2:403–433

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Williamson C (2008) The patient movement as an emancipation movement. Health Expectations 11:102–112

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Downe S, McCormick C, Beech BL (2001) Labour interventions associated with normal birth. Br J Midwifery 9:602–606

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Poitel B (2002) Hémorragies du post partum après accouchement par voie basse: pistes de réflexions. Dossiers de l’Obstétrique 311:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Belghiti J, Kayem G, Dupont C, et al (2011) Oxytocin during labour and risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage: a population-based, cohort-nested case-control study. BMJ Open 2011(1):e000514.

  33. 33.

    Chateauraynaud F, Torny D (1999) Les Sombres précurseurs: une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque, Paris, EHESS

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Phan E (2012) Ocytocine pendant l’accouchement, une pratique courante non justifiée qui s’avère délétère. Pratiques, les cahiers de la médecine utopique in press

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Latour B (2005) From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or how to make things public. In: Latour B and Weibel P (eds) Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, MIT Press, Karlsruhe, Cambridge (MA), 14–31

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Akrich M, Rabeharisoa V (2010) Evidence-Based Activism in Europe, comparing patients’ and users’ organizations’ involvement in the production and circulation of knowledge across condition areas and national contexts. Conférence The role of patient and professional organizations for eu health governance, Brussels, 21–22 septembre

  37. 37.

    Gyte GML, Dodwell MJ, Macfarlane AJ (2011) Home birth metaanalysis: does it meet AJOG’s reporting requirements? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:e15

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bel B (2004) Protocoles obstétricaux et données probantes des études scientifiques: une panacée ? Paper presented at Journées annuelles de santé publique Conférence annuelle de l’Association pour la santé publique du Québec. Montréal, Québec, Canada, 29 novembre 2004

  39. 39.

    Gyte G, Newburn M, Mcfarlane A (2010) Critique of a metaanalysis by Wax and colleagues which has claimed that there is a three-times greater risk of neonatal death among babies without congenital anomalies planned to be born at home. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34065092/Critique-of-a-meta-analysis-by-Wax (accès le 15août 2012)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Akrich.

Additional information

Cet article est fondé sur un projet de recherche, EPOKS, financé par la commission européenne (programme Science In Society, FP7). Nous remercions chaleureusement toutes les associations qui ont accepté de participer à cette recherche. Etaoine Howlett, post-doc à l’University College Cork, a participé à l’enquête en Irlande. Le cas britannique a été mené par Celia Roberts, Imogen Tyler et Candice Satchwell.

About this article

Cite this article

Akrich, M., Leane, M. & Roberts, C. Les associations d’usagers dans le domaine de la périnatalité : un engagement fondé sur la connaissance ?. Rev. med. perinat. 4, 198–205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12611-012-0199-z

Download citation

Mots clés

  • Association
  • EBM
  • Politique
  • Connaissances
  • Démocratie

Keywords

  • Users’ organisations
  • EBM
  • Politics
  • Knowledge
  • Democracy