“Why can't I have my postpartum care in the same room as my baby?” questioned Hilary, a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) “alumni” parent, during a design event for the new British Columbia's Women's Hospital 70 single family room NICU. This simple yet provocative question was nearly dismissed and the idea of a combined care model lost, since most members of the team thought it was simply “not possible.” Hilary did not give up and continued to raise this idea throughout every design event. It was Hilary's fortitude and sharing of her NICU experience that was the inspiration for the MotherBaby Care unit. The voice of one woman has improved the birth experiences of potentially thousands of mothers and their at‐risk newborns. By honoring women's voices and values in health care, positive changes that matter to women, infants, and families can be made. Mothers also shared: “I knew what was best for me was to be with my baby,” “If I could stand up after my C‐section, I would drag my IV pole to be with my baby!”, “Teach me how to take care of my premature baby before I am ready to go home!” MotherBaby Care is a combined care or “couplet” care where one NICU nurse provides care for a postpartum mother and her at‐risk newborn in the Level 2 NICU. This review describes the journey from innovation and design to the implementation of the MotherBaby Care model.
Practicing midwifery is illegal in four states and the District of Columbia. However, midwives still practice as they and much of the public do not see their behavior as criminal. Based on in-depth interviews with twenty-six midwives, our findings demonstrate that midwives employed both public and professional accounts. They collectively justified midwifery in prohibition states by condemning their condemners, appealing to higher loyalties, denying injury, and justifying by comparison. We also found a new account, denial of illegality. This research uniquely applies the concept of collective accounts to an illegal but socially acceptable career.
Despite decades of research and dozens of public health campaigns, stigma continues to negatively affect the well-being and life chances of people labeled with a mental illness. One of the most promising directions for reducing stigma lies in Allport’s (1954) theory of intergroup contact, suggesting that social interactions with people with mental illness invalidate negative stereotypes, decrease fear and anxiety, and enable perspective-taking and empathy. While the empirical literature is largely supportive of the contact hypothesis, social network theory indicates that the degree to which contact reduces stigma should depend on the nature, magnitude, and valence of exposure to people with mental illness. We address this question using data from the National Stigma Study – Replication II (NSS-R II), fielded on a special module of the 2018 General Social Survey (N=1,179). We find that simply knowing someone with mental illness, or even the number of people one knows, explains little about the public’s desire for social distance, endorsement of coercion, or perceptions of dangerousness. However, having stronger relationships with more people with mental illness, and having more friends and family (but not more peripheral ties) with mental illness, are associated with reductions in stigma. In contrast, exposure to more dangerousness or violence among people in the network with mental illness is associated with greater levels of stigma, while contact with more people who are in treatment for mental illness (as opposed to untreated) is linked to less stigma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.