Hope for the best …but expect the worst: a qualitative study to explore how women with recurrent miscarriage experience the early waiting period of a new pregnancy.
adaptation, psychological
anxiet
pregnancy
recurrent miscarriage
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2019
01 06 2019
Historique:
entrez:
3
6
2019
pubmed:
4
6
2019
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate how women experience the initial period of a new pregnancy after suffering recurrent miscarriage (RM). A qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled feasibility study of a coping intervention for RM, used semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic network approach. Participants were recruited from the Recurrent Miscarriage Clinic and Early Pregnancy Unit in two tertiary referral hospitals in the UK. 14 women with RMs and who had previously participated in the randomised controlled trial (RCT) feasibility component of the study were recruited. Seven organising themes emerged from the data: (1) turmoil of emotions, (2) preparing for the worst, (3) setting of personal milestones, (4) hypervigilance, (5) social isolation, (6) adoption of pragmatic approaches, (7) need for professional affirmation. The study established that for women with a history of RM, the waiting period of a new pregnancy is a traumatic time of great uncertainty and emotional turmoil and one in which they express a need for emotional support. Consideration should be given to the manner in which supportive care is best delivered within the constraints of current health service provision. ISRCTN43571276.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31154315
pii: bmjopen-2019-029354
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029354
pmc: PMC6549705
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN43571276']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e029354Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Apr;21(2):229-47
pubmed: 17317322
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2015 Jan-Feb;44(1):42-50
pubmed: 25782190
Womens Health (Lond). 2010 Jan;6(1):59-69
pubmed: 20088730
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2013 Oct;39(4):250-6
pubmed: 23329740
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Sep;23(3):157-64
pubmed: 12436801
Lancet. 2006 Aug 12;368(9535):601-11
pubmed: 16905025
Hum Reprod. 2015 Apr;30(4):777-82
pubmed: 25662810
BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 17;8(8):e023579
pubmed: 30121616
Health Care Women Int. 2001 Oct-Nov;22(7):649-65
pubmed: 12141842
Res Nurs Health. 2014 Aug;37(4):267-75
pubmed: 24974799
Soc Sci Med. 1997 Oct;45(8):1207-21
pubmed: 9381234
BMC Med. 2013 Jun 26;11:154
pubmed: 23803387
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Mar;111(3):710-4
pubmed: 18310375
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009 Aug;18(8):1245-57
pubmed: 19630553
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2008;66(4):257-67
pubmed: 18679035
J Cult Divers. 2016 Fall;23(3):121-127
pubmed: 29694754
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(7):1934-46
pubmed: 16781809
Hum Reprod. 2008 Oct;23(10):2299-307
pubmed: 18628259
BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 15;5(4):e007322
pubmed: 25877278
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 27;7(3):e011382
pubmed: 28348180
Br J Health Psychol. 2009 Feb;14(Pt 1):49-68
pubmed: 18435865
BMJ. 2017 Apr 4;357:j1678
pubmed: 28377430
Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):398-405
pubmed: 23213179