Doğum odasında karşılıklı bağlantı
Özet
Sağlık kurumlarındaki fizyolojik doğum oranlarının azalması ve deneyim kalitesinin düşmesi, doğum hizmetlerinde kişi merkezli bir dönüşümü zorunlu kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, doğum ortamının inşasında ve bakım kalitesinde kritik rol oynayan mekânsal, nörobiyolojik, davranışsal ve kültürel etki alanları arasındaki "karşılıklı bağlantı" (interconnectedness) modeli incelenmektedir. Mekânsal alan; sıcaklık, işlevsellik ve özgürlük sunan samimi tasarımların ebe stresini azalttığını ve aktif doğumu desteklediğini göstermektedir. Nörobiyolojik boyutta, korku ve kaygıyı tetikleyen "savaş ya da kaç" tepkisi yerine, güvenli ortamlar sayesinde sakinliği ve sosyal bağı artıran oksitosin kaynaklı "sakin ve uyumlu ol" mekanizmasının etkinleştirilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Davranışsal alan, "çevreyi değiştir, beyni değiştir, davranışı değiştir" ilkesiyle mekân estetiğinin doğum personelinin ve kadınların içgüdüsel eylemlerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini açıklar. Kültürel alan ise aşırı teknokratik odaların risk söylemini ve korku atmosferini besleyerek normal doğumu kesintiye uğratabildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, doğum odasındaki bu dört alanın birbiriyle sürekli etkileşim içinde olan bütünsel bir sistem olarak ele alınması, kurumsal kültürden bağımsız olarak güvenli, tatmin edici ve en uygun nörobiyolojik koşulların sağlanması için yeni bir stratejik temel sunmaktadır.
The decline in physiological birth rates and the decreasing quality of experiences in healthcare facilities necessitate a person-centered transformation in maternity services. This study examines the "interconnectedness" model among spatial, neurobiological, behavioral, and cultural domains, which play a critical role in the construction of the birth environment and quality of care. The spatial domain shows that welcoming designs offering warmth, functionality, and freedom reduce midwife stress and support active birth. In the neurobiological dimension, instead of the "fight or flight" response triggered by fear and anxiety, the aim is to activate the oxytocin-mediated "calm and connection" mechanism that enhances calmness and social bonding through safe environments. The behavioral domain, based on the principle of "change the environment, change the brain, change the behavior," explains how space aesthetics shape the instinctive actions of birth staff and laboring women. The cultural domain reveals that highly technocratic rooms feed into a risk discourse and an atmosphere of fear, which can interrupt normal birth. Consequently, addressing these four domains in the birth room as a holistic, continuously interacting system provides a new strategic foundation for ensuring safe, satisfying, and optimal neurobiological conditions, regardless of institutional culture.
Referanslar
ALABDULGADER, A. A. 2012. Coherence: A Novel Nonpharmacological Modality for Lowering Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients. Global Advances in Health and Medicine 1, 54-62.
ALEXANDER, C., ISHIKAWA, S. & SILVERSTEIN, M. 1977. A Pattern Language, Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
ARIADNE LABS AND MASS DESIGN GROUP 2017. Designing Capacity for High Value Healthcare: The Impact of Design on Clinical Care in Childbirth.
AVERBECK, B. B. 2010. Oxytocin and the salience of social cues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 9033-9034.
BARTZ, J. A., ZAKI, J., BOLGER, N. & OCHSNER, K. N. 2011. Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 301-309.
BERKMANN, E. 2014. Me, My Brain and I [Online]. Psychology Today. [Accessed 08.04.2018 2018].
BIRTHPLACE IN ENGLAND COLLABORATIVE GROUP 2011. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The birthplace in England national prospective cohortstudy. British medical Journal (Open Access).
BLIX, E. 2011. Avoiding disturbance: Midwifery practice in home birth settings in Norway.
Midwifery, 27, 687-692. BOURGEAULT, I. L., SUTHERNS, R., MACDONALD, M. & LUCE, J. 2012. Problematising public and private work spaces:
Midwives’ work in hospitals and in homes. Midwifery, 28, 582-590.
BOWDEN, C., SHEEHAN, A. & FOUREUR, M. 2016. Birth room images: What they tell us about childbirth. A discourse analysis of birth rooms in developed countries. Midwifery, 35, 71- 77.
BUCKLEY, S. 2015. Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing: Evidence and Implications for Women, Babies and Maternity Care. Washington: National Partnership for Women and Families.
CAAN, S. 2011. Rethinking Design and Interiors: Human Beings in the Built Environment, London, Laurence King Publishing.
CATLING, C. J., REID, F. & HUNTER, B. 2017. Australian midwives’ experiences of their workplace culture. Women and Birth, 30, 137-145.
CHAN, J., BECKMAN, S. & LAWRENCE, P. 2007. Workplace design: A new managerial imperative. California Management Review, 49, 6-22.
COAST, E., JONES, E., PORTELA, A. & LATTOF, S. 2014. Maternity Care Services and Culture: A Systematic Global Mapping of Interventions. PLoS ONE.
CODDINGTON, R., CATLING, C. & HOMER, C. S. E. 2017. From hospital to home: Australian midwives’ experiences oftransitioning into publicly-funded homebirth programs. Women and Birth, 30, 70-76.
COPELAND, F., DAHLEN, H. G. & HOMER, C. S. E. 2014. Conflicting contexts: Midwives’ interpretation of childbirth through photo elicitation. Women and Birth, 27, 126-131.
DAGUSTAN, J. 2009. Why do so few women give birth at home? Interpreting place in childbirth discourse. School of Geography Working Paper Series [Online].
DAVIES, B. L. & HODNETT, E. 2002. Labor Support: Nurses’ Self-Efficacy and Views About Factors Influencing Implementation. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 31, 48- 56.
DAVIS, D., BADDOCK, S., PAIRMAN, S., HUNTER, M., BENN, C., WILSON, D., DIXON, L. & HERBISON, P. 2011. Planned Place of Birth in New Zealand: Does it Affect Mode of Birth and Intervention Rates Among Low- Risk Women? Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, 38, 111-119.
DAVIS, D. & WALKER, K. 2010a. The corporeal, the social and space/place: Exploring intersections from a miidwifery perspective in New Zealand. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 17, 377-391.
DAVIS, D. L. & WALKER, K. 2010b. Case-loading midwifery in New Zealand: making space for childbirth. Midwifery, 26, 603-608.
DAVIS, J. A. P. 2010. Midwives and Normalcy in Childbirth: A Phenomenologic Concept Development Study. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 55, 206-215. DAY, C. 2014. Places Of The Soul, New York, Routledge.
DAZKIR, S. & READ, M. 2011. Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses toward interior environments. Environment and Behaviour, 10, 1-13.
DEERY, R. & FISHER, P. 2017. Professionalism and person-centredness: developing a practice- based approach to leadership within NHS maternity services in the UK. Health Sociology Review, 26, 143-159.
DILANI, A. Psychosocially supportive design: A salutogenic approach to the design of the physial environment. 1st International Conference on Sustainable Healthy Buildings, 2009 Seoul, Korea. DUNCAN, J. 2011. The effect of colour and design in labour and delivery: A scientific approach. Optics and Laser Technology, 43, 420-424.
ESCURIET, R., WHITE, J., BEECKMAN, K., FRITH, L., LEON-LARIOS, F., LOYTVED, C., LUYBEN, A., SINCLAIR, M., VAN TEIJLINGEN, E., AND EU COST ACTION IS. ‘CHILDBIRTH CULTURES, C. & CONSEQUENCES’ 2015. Assessing the performance of maternity care in Europe: a critical exploration of tools and indicators. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 491.
FAHY, K. 2008. Power and the Social Construction of the Birth Territory. In: FAHY, K., FOUREUR, M. & HASTIE, C. (eds.) Birth Territory and Midwifery Guardianship: Theory for Practice, Education and Research. London: Butterworth Heinemann.
FANNIN, M. 2003. Domesticating birth in the hospital: ‘family-centered’ birth and the emergence of ‘homelike’ birthing rooms. Antipode, 35, 513-534.
FELDMAN, R. 2012. Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 380-391. FORBES, I., HOMER, C., FOUREUR, M. & LEAP, N. 2008. Birthing unit design: Researching new principles. World Health Design, Oct 2008, 47-53.
FOUREUR, M. 2008. Creating Space to Enable Undisturbed Birth. In: FAHY, K., FOUREUR,
M. & HASTIE, C. (eds.) Birth Territory and Midwifery Guardianship: Theory for Practice, Education and Research. Sydney: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier.FOUREUR, M., DAVIS, D., FENWICK, J., LEAP, N., IEDEMA, R., FORBES, I. & HOMER, C. S. 2010. The relationship between birth unit design and safe, satisfying birth: Developing a hypothetical model. Midwifery, 26, 520-525. FREEMANTLE, D. 2013. Part 1: The cultural web -- A model for change in maternity services. British Journal of Midwifery, 21, 648-653.
FRITH, L., SINCLAIR, M., VEHVILÄINEN-JULKUNEN, K., BEECKMAN, K., LOYTVED, C. & LUYBEN, A. 2014. Organisational culture in maternity care: a scoping review. Evidence Based Midwifery, 12, 16-22. GAGE, F. 2004. Structural plasticity of the adult brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 6, 135-141. GIERYN, T. F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463.
GOLEMBIEWSKI, J. 2016. Saultogenic Architecture in Healthcare Settings. In:
MITTLELMARK, M., SAGY, S., ERIKSSON, M., BAUER, G., PELIKAN, J., LINDSTROM, B.
& ESPNES, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Salutogenesis. New York: Springer. GROPPE, S. E., GOSSEN, A., RADEMACHER, L., HAHN, A., WESTPHAL, L., GRÜNDER, G. & SPRECKELMEYER, K. N. 2013.
Oxytocin Influences Processing of Socially Relevant Cues in the Ventral Tegmental Area of the Human Brain. Biological Psychiatry, 74, 172-179.
GUTERIDGE, K. & GILES, H. 2013. Setting the standard. Midwives. Redactive Publishing. HAMMOND, A. 2017. Oxtytocin and Adrenaline Spaces. PhD, University of Technology Sydney.
HAMMOND, A., FOUREUR, M. & HOMER, C. 2013. The hardware and software implications of birth unit design: A midwifery perspective. Midwifery, In Press.
HAMMOND, A., HOMER, C. & FOUREUR, M. 2014. Messages from space: An exploration of the relationship between hospital birth environments and midwifery practice. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 7, 81-95.
HAMMOND, A., HOMER, C. S. E. & FOUREUR, M. 2017. Friendliness, functionality and freedom: Design characteristicsthat support midwifery practice in the hospital setting. Midwifery, 50, 133-138.
HARTE, J. D. 2016. Childbirth Supporters 19 Experiences in a Built Hospital Birth Environment. HERD, 9, 135-161.
HERZOG, T. & STREVEY, S. 2008. Contact with nature, sense of humour and psychological wellbeing. Environment and Behaviour, 40, 747-776.
HODNETT, E., WALSH, D. & DOWNE, S. 2012. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
HOMER, C. 2016. Models of maternity care: evidence for midwifery continuity of care. Medical Journal of Australia,205, 370-374.
HUNTER, M. 2003. Autonomy, clinical freedom and responsibility. In: KIRKHAM, M. (ed.) Birth Centres: A Social Model for Maternity Care. London: Elsevier Science.
INSTITUTE, S. 2012. Do Changes in the Environment Affect the Brain? YouTube.
ISHAK, W. W., KAHLOON, M. & FAKHRY, H. 2011. Oxytocin role in enhancing well-being: A literature review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 130, 1-9.
JENKINSON, B., JOSEY, N. & KRUSKE, S. BirthSpace: An evidence-based guide to birth environment design. Queensland: Queensland Centre for Mothers and Babies, The University of Queensland.
KEATING, A. & FLEMING, V. E. M. 2009. Midwives’ experiences of facilitating normal birth in an obstetric-led unit: a feminist perspective. Midwifery, 25, 518-527.
KENNEDY, H. P., YOSHIDA, S., COSTELLO, A., DECLERCQ, E., DIAS, M. A., DUFF, E., GHERISSI, A., KAUFMAN, K., MCCONVILLE, F., MCFADDEN, A., MICHEL-SCHULDT, M., MOYO, N. T., SCHUILING, K., SPECIALE, A. M. & RENFREW,
M. J. 2016. Asking different questions: research priorities to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. The Lancet Global Health, 4, e777-e779.
KIRKHAM, M. & STAPLETON, H. 2004. The Culture of the Maternity Services in Wales and England as a Barrier to Informed Choice. In: KIRKHAM, M. (ed.) Informed Choice in Maternity Care. Basingstoke; Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
KOBLINSKY, M., MOYER, C. A., CALVERT, C., CAMPBELL, J., CAMPBELL, O. M. R., FEIGL, A. B., GRAHAM, W. J., HATT, L., HODGINS, S., MATTHEWS, Z., MCDOUGALL, L., MORAN, A. C., NANDAKUMAR, A. K. & LANGER, A. 2016.
Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. The Lancet, 388, 2307-2320. LAWSON, B. 2010. Healing Architecture. Arts and Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice, 2, 95-108.
LEPORI, B. 1994. Freedom of movement in birth places. Children’s Environments, 11, 1-12. LOUNSBURY, C. 2010. Architecture and Cultural History. In: HICKS, D. & BEAUDRY, M. (eds.) the Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MACLELLAN, J. 2011. The art of midwifery practice: A discourse analysis. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 21, 25-31. MCCRATY, R., ATKINSON, M., LIPSENTHAL, L. & ARGUELLES, L. 2009. New Hope for Correctional Officers: An
Innovative Program for Reducing Stress and Health Risks. Applied Psychophysiological Biofeedback, 34, 251-272.
METZGER, C. 2018. Neuroarchitecture, Berlin, Jovis.
MILLER, S. & SKINNER, J. 2012. Are first time mothers who plan home birth more likely to receive evidence-based care? A comparative study of home and hospital care provided by the same midwives. Birth, 39, 135-144.
MISAGO, C., KENDALL, C., FREITAS, P., HANEDA, K., SILVEIRA, D., ONUKI, D., MORI, T., SADAMORI, T. & UMENAI, T. 2001. From ‘culture of dehumanization of childbirth’ to ‘childbirth as a transformative experience’: changes in five municipalities in north‐east Brazil. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 75, S67-S72.
MONCRIEFF, G. 2018. Can continuity bring birth back to women and normality back to midwives? British Journal of Midwifery, 26, 642-650.
MONDY, T., FENWICK, J., LEAP, N. & FOUREUR, M. 2016. How domesticity dictates behaviour in the birth space: Lessons for designing birth environments in institutions wanting to promote a positive experience of birth. Midwifery, 43, 37-47.
NANDA, U., PATI, D., GHAMARI, H. & BAJEMA, R. 2013. Lessons from neuroscience: form follows function, emotions follow form. Intelligent Buildings International, 5, 61-78.
NYGREN, A. 2018. Inequality and interconnectivity: Urban spaces of justice in Mexico. Geoforum, 89, 145-154.
O’CONNELL, R. & DOWNE, S. 2009. A metasynthesis of midwive’s experience of hospital practice in publicly funded settings: Compliance, resistance and authenticity. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 13, 589-609.
ODENT, M. 1984. Birth Reborn, London, Random House.
ÖHMAN, A. 2005. The role of the amygdala in human fear: Automatic detection of threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 953-958.
OLFF, M., FRIJLING, J. L., KUBZANSKY, L. D., BRADLEY, B., ELLENBOGEN, M. A., CARDOSO, C., BARTZ, J. A., YEE, J. R. &
VAN ZUIDEN, M. 2013. The role of oxytocin in social bonding, stress regulation and mental health: An update on the moderating effects of context and interindividual differences. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 1883-1894. OLIVIERA, F., KAKEHASHI, T., TSUNEMI, M. & PINHEIRO, E. 2011. Noise levels in the delivery room. Text and Context Nursing, 20, 287-293.
PEREZ-BOTELLA, M., DOWNE, S., MAGISTRETTI, M., LINDSTROM, B. & BERG, M. 2015. The use of salutogenesis theory in empirical studies of maternity care for healthy mothers and babies. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 6, 33-39.
PETERS, L. L., THORNTON, C., DE JONGE, A., KHASHAN, A., TRACY, M., DOWNE, S., FEIJEN- DE JONG, E. I. & DAHLEN,
H. G. 2018. The effect of medical and operative birth interventions on child health outcomes in the first 28 days and up to 5 years of age: A linked data population-based cohort study. Birth- Issues in Perinatal Care, 45, 347-357. PEZARO, S., PEARCE, G. & BAILEY, E. 2018. Childbearing women’s experiences of midwives’ workplace distress: Patient and public involvement. British Journal of Midwifery, 26, 659-669.
PULVERMÜLLER, F. 2013. How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458-470.
RENFREW, M. J. 2014. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. The Lancet (British edition), 384, 1129-1145.
ROMANO, A. M. & LOTHIAN, J. A. 2008. Promoting, Protecting, and Supporting Normal Birth: A Look at the Evidence.
JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 37, 94-105.
RUOHOMÄKI, V., LAHTINEN, M. & REIJULA, K. 2015. Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design. Intelligent Buildings International, 7, 184-197.
SANDALL, J., SOLTANI, H., GATES, S., SHENNAN, A. & DEVANE, D. 2013. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, CD004667.
SCAMELL, M. & ALASZEWSKI, A. 2012. Fateful moments and the catergorisation of risk: Midwifery practice and the ever-narrowing window of normality during childbirth. Health, Risk and Society, 14, 207-221.
SCARF, V. L., ROSSITER, C., VEDAM, S., DAHLEN, H. G., ELLWOOD, D., FORSTER, D., FOUREUR, M. J., MCLACHLAN, H.,
OATS, J., SIBBRITT, D., THORNTON, C. & HOMER, C. S. E. 2018. Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Midwifery, 62, 240-255.
SCHMIDT, L. J., BELOPOLSKY, A. V. & THEEUWES, J. 2017. The time course of attentional bias to cues of threat and safety. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 845-857.
SINGH, D. & NEWBURN, M. 2006. Feathering the nest: what women want from the birth environment. RCM Midwives, 9, 266-269.
SLEUTEL, M., SCHULTZ, S. & WYBLE, K. 2007. Nurses’ Views of Factors That Help and Hinder Their Intrapartum Care. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 36, 203-211.
STARK, M. A., REMYNSE, M. & ZWELLING, E. 2016. Importance of the Birth Environment to Support Physiologic Birth. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 45, 285-294.
STENGLIN, M. & FOUREUR, M. 2013. Designing out the Fear Cascade to increase the likelihood of normal birth. Midwifery, 29, 819-825.
STENGLIN, M. K. 2009. Space odyssey: towards a social semiotic model of three-dimensional space. Visual Communication, 8, 35-64.
TECHAU, D., OWEN, C., PATON, D. & FAY, R. 2016. Buildings, Brains and Behaviour: Towards an affective neuroscience of architecture. Design and Health Scientifc Review, 24-37.
TOWNSEND, B., FENWICK, J., THOMSON, V. & FOUREUR, M. 2016. The birth bed: A qualitative study on the views of midwives regarding the use of the bed in the birth space. Women and Birth, 29, 80-84.
TRACY, S., SULLIVAN, E., WANG, Y., BLACK, D. & TRACY, M. 2007. Birth outcomes associated with interventions in labour amongst low risk women: A population based study. Women & Birth, 20, 41-48.TUAN, Y. 1977. Space and Place, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
ULRICH, R., BERRY, L., XIAOBO, Q. & TURNER PARISH, J. 2010. A Conceptual Framework for the Domain of Evidence- Based Design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 4, 95-114.
UVNÄS MOBERG, K., ARN, I. & MAGNUSSON, D. 2005. The Psychobiology of Emotion: The Role of the Oxytocinergic System. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 59-65.
VARTANIAN, O., NAVARRETE, G., CHATTERJEE, A., FICH, L., LEDER, H., MODROÑO, C., ROSTRUP, N., SKOV, M., CORRAD,
G. & NADAL, M. 2017. Preference for Curvilinear Contour in Interior Architectural Spaces: Evidence From Experts and Nonexperts.
VEDAM, S. 2017. The Mothers on Respect (MOR) index: measuring quality, safety, and human rights in childbirth. SSM - population health, 3, 201-210.
VISCHER, J. 2008. Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review, 51, 97-108.
WALKER, R., POLESZCZUK, J., PILON-THOMAS, S., KIM, S., ANDERSON, A., CZERNIECKI, B. J., HARRISON, L. B., MOROS,
E. G. & ENDERLIN, H. 2018. Immune interconnectivity of anatomically distant tumors as a potential mediator of systemic responses to local therapy. Scientific Reports, 8.
WALSH, D. 2006. Subverting the assembly-line: childbirth in a free-standing birth centre. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1330-1340.
WALSH, D. & GUTTERIDGE, K. 2011. Using the birth environment to increase women’s potential in labour. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 21, 143-147.
WATSON, A. 2009. Examining the Content Validity of the BUDSET Instrument Within a Woman- Centred Framework. Bachelor of Midwifery (Honours), University of Technology, Sydney.
WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. 2019. Interconnectedness [Online]. : Western Washington University. Available: https://www.facingthefuture.org/pages/interconnectedness [Accessed 04/01/2019 2019].
