Midwives' Attitudes Toward and Experience With a Tablet Intervention to Promote Safety Behaviors for Pregnant Women Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: Qualitative Study

Lisa Garnweidner-Holme, Lena Henriksen, Eva Marie Flaathen, Tone Klette Bøhler, Mirjam Lukasse, Lisa Garnweidner-Holme, Lena Henriksen, Eva Marie Flaathen, Tone Klette Bøhler, Mirjam Lukasse

Abstract

Background: Violence against women is considered a global health problem, and intimate partner violence (IPV) around the time of childbirth can have severe consequences for mother and child. Prenatal care is considered a window of opportunity to address IPV and ask women about exposure to violence since women are in regular contact with health care providers. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions might overcome the barriers to talking about IPV face-to-face.

Objective: Our objective was to explore midwives' attitudes toward a tablet intervention consisting of information about IPV and safety behaviors as well as their experiences with recruiting pregnant women of different ethnic backgrounds in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with 9 midwives who recruited participants for an RCT to test a video to promote safety behaviors delivered on a tablet during prenatal care. Analysis was guided by thematic analysis.

Results: Midwives perceived the tablet intervention as an appropriate supplement during prenatal care to provide information about IPV and promote safety behaviors. They participated in the RCT primarily to obtain more knowledge regarding how to communicate about IPV. The intervention was perceived as an anonymous door-opener to talk about IPV and a good solution to ensure that every woman gets the same information. However, the content of the intervention had to be trustworthy and align with the information the midwives provide to women. Given the sensitivity of IPV, midwives outlined the importance of following the intervention with face-to-face communication. Midwives reported technical problems and a high demand on their time as the main challenges to recruiting women. They experienced challenges recruiting women of different ethnic backgrounds due to linguistic barriers and the women's skepticism about scientific research.

Conclusions: The tablet intervention might help midwives communicate about IPV. Although the video was considered as an anonymous door-opener to talk about IPV, midwives outlined the importance of following the intervention with face-to-face communication. The scarcity of midwives' time during consultations has to be considered when implementing the intervention. Further research is needed to overcome barriers that limit inclusion of women from different ethnic backgrounds.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03397277; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03397277.

Keywords: attitudes; intimate partner violence; mHealth; midwives; prenatal care.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Lisa Garnweidner-Holme, Lena Henriksen, Eva Marie Flaathen, Tone Klette Bøhler, Mirjam Lukasse. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 20.05.2020.

References

    1. Garcia-Moreno C, C. Devries K, Töckl H. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [2020-04-08].
    1. James L, Brody D, Hamilton Z. Risk Factors for Domestic Violence During Pregnancy: A Meta-Analytic Review. Violence Vict. 2013 Jan 01;28(3):359–380. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00034.
    1. Hjemdal O. E., K. Å spørre om vold ved svangerskapskontroll. 2009;Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter om vold og traumatisk stress
    1. Lukasse M, Schei B, Ryding EL. Prevalence and associated factors of fear of childbirth in six European countries. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. 2014 Oct;5(3):99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2014.06.007.
    1. Henriksen L, Schei B, Vangen S, Lukasse M. Sexual violence and mode of delivery: a population-based cohort study. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gy. 2014 Jun 18;121(10):1237–1244. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12923.
    1. Jewkes R. Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The Lancet. 2002 Apr;359(9315):1423–1429. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08357-5.
    1. Hill A, Pallitto C, McCleary-Sills J, Garcia-Moreno C. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intimate partner violence during pregnancy and selected birth outcomes. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2016 Mar 11;133(3):269–276. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.10.023.
    1. Alhusen JL, Bullock L, Sharps P, Schminkey D, Comstock E, Campbell J. Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy and Adverse Neonatal Outcomes in Low-Income Women. Journal of Women's Health. 2014 Nov;23(11):920–926. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4862.
    1. Pastor-Moreno G, Ruiz-Pérez I, Henares-Montiel J, Petrova D. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and risk of fetal and neonatal death: a meta-analysis with socioeconomic context indicators. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020 Feb;222(2):123–133.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.045.
    1. Devries KM, Kishor S, Johnson H, Stöckl H, Bacchus LJ, Garcia-Moreno C, Watts C. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of prevalence data from 19 countries. Reproductive Health Matters. 2010 Nov 24;18(36):158–170. doi: 10.1016/s0968-8080(10)36533-5.
    1. Norwegian Directorate of Health, Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for svangerskapsomsorgen - hvordan avdekke vold. National guidlines, ananatal care ? how to uncover violence (in Norwegian) 2014: Oslo. 2014
    1. O'Doherty LJ, Taft A, Hegarty K, Ramsay J, Davidson LL, Feder G. Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014 May 12;348(may12 1):g2913–g2913. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2913.
    1. Pallitto C, García-Moreno C, Stöeckl H, Hatcher A, MacPhail C, Mokoatle K, Woollett N. Testing a counselling intervention in antenatal care for women experiencing partner violence: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in Johannesburg, South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Nov 5;16(1) doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1872-x.
    1. Stewart DE, Aviles R, Guedes A, Riazantseva E, MacMillan H. Latin American and Caribbean countries’ baseline clinical and policy guidelines for responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women. BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 15;15(1) doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1994-9.
    1. Tiwari A. A randomised controlled trial of empowerment training for Chinese abused pregnant women in Hong Kong. Bjog. 2005;112(9):1249–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00709.x.
    1. Kiely M, El-Mohandes AAE, El-Khorazaty MN, Gantz MG. An Integrated Intervention to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence in Pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2010;115(2, Part 1):273–283. doi: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181cbd482.
    1. Maar MA, Yeates K, Perkins N, Boesch L, Hua-Stewart D, Liu P, Sleeth J, Tobe SW. A Framework for the Study of Complex mHealth Interventions in Diverse Cultural Settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Apr 20;5(4):e47. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7044.
    1. Eustace J, Baird K, Saito AS, Creedy DK. Midwives’ experiences of routine enquiry for intimate partner violence in pregnancy. Women and Birth. 2016 Dec;29(6):503–510. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.04.010.
    1. Garnweidner-Holme LM, Lukasse M, Solheim M, Henriksen L. 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. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Apr 19;17(1) doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1308-6.
    1. Henriksen L, Garnweidner-Holme L, Thorsteinsen K, Lukasse M. ‘It is a difficult topic’ – a qualitative study of midwives´ experiences with routine antenatal enquiry for intimate partner violence. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jun 2;17(1) doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1352-2.
    1. Sprague S, Madden K, Simunovic N, Godin K, Pham NK, Bhandari M, Goslings JC. Barriers to Screening for Intimate Partner Violence. Women & Health. 2012 Aug;52(6):587–605. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2012.690840.
    1. Bacchus LJ, Bullock L, Sharps P, Burnett C, Schminkey DL, Buller AM, Campbell J. Infusing Technology Into Perinatal Home Visitation in the United States for Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: Exploring the Interpretive Flexibility of an mHealth Intervention. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Nov 17;18(11):e302. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6251.
    1. World Health Organization, mHealth New horizons for health through mobile technologies: second global survey on eHealth. 2011: Geneva. 2011
    1. White A, Thomas DS, Ezeanochie N, Bull S. Health Worker mHealth Utilization. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2016;34(5):206–213. doi: 10.1097/cin.0000000000000231.
    1. Hennemann S, Beutel ME, Zwerenz R. Ready for eHealth? Health Professionals’ Acceptance and Adoption of eHealth Interventions in Inpatient Routine Care. Journal of Health Communication. 2017 Feb 19;22(3):274–284. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1284286.
    1. Glass N, Eden KB, Bloom T, Perrin N. Computerized Aid Improves Safety Decision Process for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. J Interpers Violence. 2009 Dec 29;25(11):1947–1964. doi: 10.1177/0886260509354508.
    1. Henriksen L, Flaathen EM, Angelshaug J, Garnweidner-Holme L, Småstuen MC, Noll J, Taft A, Schei B, Lukasse M. The Safe Pregnancy study - promoting safety behaviours in antenatal care among Norwegian, Pakistani and Somali pregnant women: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 10;19(1) doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6922-y.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006 Jan;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Hjemdal O. K. and K. Engnes, Å spørre om vold ved svangerskapskontroll. 2009;Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter om vold og traumatisk stress:92.
    1. Baird K, Creedy D, Eustace J, Saito A. Australian midwives’ understanding and experience of routine enquiry for intimate partner violence during pregnancy. Women and Birth. 2015;28:S39–S40. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.07.126.
    1. Smith R, Wight R, Homer CS. ‘ Asking the hard questions ’: Improving midwifery students’ confidence with domestic violence screening in pregnancy. Nurse Education in Practice. 2018 Jan;28:27–33. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2017.05.006.
    1. Henriksen L, Garnweidner-Holme L, Thorsteinsen K, Lukasse M. ‘It is a difficult topic’ – a qualitative study of midwives´ experiences with routine antenatal enquiry for intimate partner violence. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jun 2;17(1) doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1352-2.
    1. Schwab-Reese LM, Renner LM. Screening, management, and treatment of intimate partner violence among women in low-resource settings. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2018 Apr 06;14:174550651876670. doi: 10.1177/1745506518766709.
    1. Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ. Mapping mHealth Research: A Decade of Evolution. J Med Internet Res. 2013 May 21;15(5):e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2430.
    1. Lopez-Class M, Cubbins L, Loving AM. Considerations of Methodological Approaches in the Recruitment and Retention of Immigrant Participants. J. Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2015 Jul 14;3(2):267–280. doi: 10.1007/s40615-015-0139-2.
    1. Garnweidner-Holme L, Hoel Andersen T, Sando MW, Noll J, Lukasse M. Health Care Professionals’ Attitudes Toward, and Experiences of Using, a Culture-Sensitive Smartphone App for Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 May 14;6(5):e123. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9686.
    1. Denzin N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 3 ed. 2008;Thousand Oaks, California

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren