Challenging Dogma


Monday, May 7, 2012

Strong4Life “Takes Out The Fun” Of Being An Anti-Obesity Campaign- Sangah (Ivory) Kim



With the problematic childhood obesity rates in the United States, public health professionals have attempted many ways to defeat this constant battle. Endless programs have been implemented over the years all over the United States. Some were shown to be effective, some not as much. Despite this effort, the childhood obesity rates have steadily increased over the last 20 years in the US.
Although obesity-associated morbidities occur more frequently in adults, significant consequences of obesity as well as the antecedents of adult disease occur in obese children and adolescents (2). As the numbers of children with chronic diseases goes up, the cost of health care will increase in order to treat them in the future. Thus, it may be most logical and beneficial to intervene at a younger age to minimize the risk of developing possible chronic diseases and reduce the burden on the US healthcare system.
            In 2011, as a part of childhood anti-obesity intervention, Georgia took the issue a little more seriously and headed in a different direction. To fight this crisis, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta saw the growing problem in their state and launched a program called Strong4Life. According to the data reported from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia has the second highest childhood obesity rate in the United States, topping at about 1 million children, and reported that 75% of parents in Georgia who have obese/overweight children did not recognize the problem (1).
Strong4Life mainly used advertisements, billboards, websites and other types of social media to engage and grab the attention of the public about this epidemic. The advertisements were part of a five-year, $25 million anti-obesity effort. Although the funds included other programs like training pediatricians, getting programs in schools, and setting up a clinic to treat the medical and psychological issues related to obesity, the majority of their funds were dedicated to the advertisements and billboards that were made to “wake up” the population of Georgia (1).
Regardless of their initial “good” intent, the Strong4Life interventions have many flaws. This paper attempts to discuss the shortcomings of this intervention and how it can be modified or more effectively designed in pursuing their goal.

Criticism of Intervention 1: Strong4Life blames the parents for the problem of childhood obesity with negative statements.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Recruiting Adolescents in the Fight to Improve Organ Donation – Jody Grundman



            Transplantation of solid organs is an accepted therapy for many debilitating and life-threatening illnesses (1). A single donor gives on average over 30 additional life-years to patients awaiting transplantation (2), and contributes to a significantly improved quality of life. The number of organs procured for transplantation in the United States is insufficient to meet needs (1). It is estimated that only 42% of eligible donors actually donate their organs for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to lack of consent (2). The fact that eligible donors do not consent to organ donation translates into over 250 000 life-years lost annually across the country (2).
The majority of potential donors are young individuals involved in sudden and violent trauma. In 2004, the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) reported that donation from people age 50 and older has increased dramatically, while donation from individuals under 34 has decreased (3). According to the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (OPTN/SRTR) Annual Report, only 405 of the 8 022 (5%) deceased organ donors in 2009 were 12-17 (4).  An intervention that increases organ donation among adolescents can have a huge impact on the organ donor insufficiency problem. In this paper I will discuss an intervention, provide arguments as to why it is not effective, and propose more effective solutions.
The Seattle Public High School Health Education Program
            One intervention that aims to increase organ donation among adolescents is a health education program in a Seattle public high school. The 40-minute program begins with a project coordinator from a community health promotion agency introducing the topic. After the introduction, a transplant surgeon talks to the class for 10 minutes. The surgeon explains systematic issues, including how the waiting list is composed, the nationalized computer information and allocation system, and the donor-recipient matching process. The surgeon also talks about facts relating to donation, such as the disparities in waiting times, the prevalence of diseases leading to transplantation, success rates of transplantation for different organs, and the current donor shortage (5).
After the surgeon is finished, 2 young transplant recipients talk about their personal experiences for 10 minutes each. Every segment is followed by a question and answer period. The program was found to significantly improve knowledge about organ donation among participants, and those with higher knowledge were significantly more likely to have positive opinions about donation (5). Nothing was reported about the intervention’s effect on donor registration behavior, which could be a possible flaw of the campaign.
Criticism of Intervention 1: The Intervention Does Not Work in Accordance with Current Legislation
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the adjusted rate of teen deaths (15-19) in the state of Washington in 2008 was 49 per 100 000 teenagers (6), while the overall rate of deaths in the population was 723.7 per 100 000 (7). Teenage mortality contributes approximately 6.8% of the state’s overall mortality rate, and in terms of potential organ donors, this is a significant proportion. Adolescents can have a huge impact on the organ donor shortage, but current state laws hinder this group’s potential.
            An intervention that is aimed at high school students in order to motivate donor behavior is extremely inefficient under current legislation. The intervention assumes that if an adolescent is educated about organ donation, his improved knowledge will cause him to register as an organ donor. Even if this assumption is valid, a minor registering as an organ donor in Washington does not guarantee that his decision will be honored. The law stipulates that you have to be at least 15½ years old in order to choose to register as an organ donor and get the donor symbol on your intermediate driver’s license or ID card. Until you are 18 or emancipated, your parent or guardian has the right to revoke your consent at the time of donation (8). Since the Washington legislation does not give minor consent legal authority without a parent or guardian’s permission, the intervention has little chance of being effective in increasing adolescent organ donation. Even if the intervention is successful in increasing organ donor registration at the time of licensing, the parent or guardian can reverse the progress of the intervention under current state law.
Many courts have recognized that so-called “mature minors” have the right to make decisions about their own medical treatment. The Supreme Court has held that mature minors have the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion. States cannot require a minor to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion if “she is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision…independently” (9). From the Supreme Court’s ruling, it is clear that the autonomy of a minor’s decisions is a very complicated subject that varies based on the contextual circumstances of the decision. Adolescents who have participated in an education program carried out in public school should be considered mature and well enough informed to make his decision about donation. There is tremendous pressure on medical and government policymakers to reform the present organ transplantation system to be both more effective and more fair in saving lives (10). A modification of how Washington organ donation laws deal with minor consent is imperative in order to increase organ donation among adolescents.
Criticism of Intervention 2: The Messenger Does Not Match the Target Audience
            A messenger of a behavior change campaign is a model appearing in the message that delivers information, demonstrates behavior, or provides a testimonial. A messenger can be important for attracting attention, personalizing abstract concepts by modeling actions and consequences, bolstering belief formation due to source credibility, and facilitating retention due to memorability (11). The Seattle High School Health Educational Program uses a community health agency employee, transplant surgeon, and transplant recipients as the communicators. Although these individuals are credible and knowledgeable, they are not the most effective message sources for an adolescent campaign.
            Messenger credibility is an important quality to consider. Perception of credibility might be a critical determinant of the efficacy of health-promotion initiatives (12). A messenger that is knowledgeable about the facts may not be the most effective person to motivate a behavior change among adolescents (13). Healthcare experts are certainly credible messengers, but this is not the most important characteristic for an adolescent audience. The extent to which a teen identifies with both the way the message is presented as well as with the messenger may affect its impact on behavioral change (14). These messengers are knowledgeable and credible, but students would probably have a difficult time relating to adult experts.
Inappropriate messenger is a common flaw in traditional health education campaigns (14). The intervention was successful at improving knowledge and attitude toward organ donation. These results demonstrate that the credible messengers were able to impart knowledge and influence attitude successfully, but their influence on behavior is unknown. Prioritizing credibility over similarity was a poor choice for a campaign aiming to motivate a behavioral change. The intervention did not focus on messenger attributes that have been proven to be affective with teenage audiences.
The messenger must be someone that teens can readily identify with (14). The professional adults are non-relatable for adolescents, so it is unlikely that their messages would prompt a behavioral change. The transplant recipients are young, but similarity in age does not outweigh the obvious differences between the messengers and the audience. The intervention actually highlights the differences between the messenger and the audience that perhaps a teenager would not have otherwise noticed. The transplant recipients appear to look similar and relatable to high school students, however after they share their organ donation experiences they will no longer seem comparable. Healthy high school students will not understand the challenges associated with their illnesses before they received a transplant. The intervention would probably be much more successful at motivating organ donor registration if the messengers were more relatable and similar to the audience.
Criticism of Intervention 3: The Intervention is Aimed At Changing Individual Knowledge and Attitude
            The decision to donate your organs is more of a joint decision than an individual choice. Making the decision to sign a donor card and actually donating are not equivalent. Organ donor registration is the targeted behavioral change of the program, but it is a vague promise whose fulfillment is usually in the distant future (3). This is true for all donors, regardless of age. The lag that exists between the decision and action of donation is even more complicated for minors. Adult consent is an extra element that must be satisfied in order to complete the behavior. The program’s complete disregard for motivating adult consent hinders any progress that the intervention has on the potential adolescent donor.
If the patient’s intentions are unknown, the donation decision is typically made at the time of enormous grief. Several factors shape whether consent is given (15), and these can be different than what might be considered at a time when the family is not mourning the loss of a loved one. Families are typically unprepared for such overwhelming circumstances, and they have frequently never before considered the decision whether to donate (3). Making such an important decision at a time that the family is in shock and pain jeopardizes the probability that donation will be thought about in a composed and rational context. An intervention targeted at the individual does not provide for an adolescent to make his decision known to his parent or guardian. Presence of an organ donor card lets family know the patient’s intentions, but it is not enough to secure permission to proceed with organ donation (15). If the family only finds out the patient’s intentions at the time he is declared brain dead, it is possible that the sorrow and sadness will cause the family to disregard the patient’s wishes.
            Family that does not know a lot about organ donation is even more unlikely to respect the wishes of the minor. Donation knowledge seems to be acquired typically through nonmedical sources. As a result, an abundance of misconception and fear is association with organ donation. It is common for individuals who have not been properly educated about organ donation to believe that organs will be removed before the patient is dead, death will be declared too soon, or that donors are maintained on life support unnecessarily long for the purpose of removing organs (16). The current intervention abolishes these misconceptions among the adolescents, but they persist in the majority of people whose only exposure to organ donation knowledge is sensationalized media.
Organ donation is not a common topic of discussion in today’s society. Many people believe that discussing sudden, accidental, or unexpected death may jinx that person (17). Under current social norms it is unlikely that adolescents will discuss what they have learned from the intervention with their family or friends outside of school. A campaign that targets individuals is inefficient for obtaining the family support needed to ensure that the donor’s intended behavior will actually occur.
New Intervention Proposal: Use the Media to Communicate Effectively, Raise Awareness, and Shift Social Norms
            An intervention that aims to increase adolescent organ donation must accomplish several objectives in order to be successful. A new intervention that makes use of the media to communicate knowledge and positive attitudes will reach a large audience, influence social norms, and make organ donation a more normative aspect of daily life. The intervention will use adolescent television programming to convey accurate information about organ donation and the consent process. Because death and freak accidents are a common feature of popular young adult dramas, there is ample opportunity to incorporate organ donor content into adolescent popular culture.
Adolescent television characters will discuss organ donation with family and friends around the time that they are learning to drive or preparing to get their license. In addition to introducing discussion about organ donor registration, characters will model organ donor registration at the time they receive their temporary license, and families of a brain-dead character will decide to donate the available organs.
            After the episode has aired, a celebrity from the show that is popular among adolescents will talk directly to the viewer about organ donation and what to do next. The celebrity will talk about the current organ donor shortage, legislation regarding minor consent, and the urgent need to change the state laws. The celebrity will explain the campaign’s effort to create a new law that requires the parent or guardian to authorize the adolescent’s consent at the time that they register as an organ donor. The viewer will be directed to a website to get more information about organ donation, how to join the registry, and how to sign the petition to get the law changed.
A press release that highlights the increase in discussion about organ donation in young adult entertainment will be distributed to all state press outlets. The media attention will attract more public attention and rally the necessary support in order to pressure a legislative change and improve organ donor registration.
Defense of New Intervention 1: Public Awareness Will Be the Force for a Legislative Change
            Legislation should work in conjunction with health campaigns to improve outcomes, instead of serving as an obstacle on the path to improving the organ donor shortage. The laws must be changed in order to ensure that a minor’s wishes to be a donor have a better chance of being respected at the time of the decision. The intervention would raise public awareness and interest in the current state organ donation legislation.
Agenda Setting Theory explains the influence that the media has on public opinion and politics. The theory proposes that increased media attention is believed to lead to increased community concern for a particular issue.  The media does not mirror public priorities; they shape them (18). Agenda setting can be used to explain how political actors determine their priorities, give attention to or ignore issues, and do, or do not, make decisions concerning these topics (19). The intervention would make organ donation more dominant on the media’s agenda, and then on the political agenda. Adolescents who probably had no idea that their donation decision could be reversed by a parent or guardian would now be fully enlightened. The increased media attention and improved public support will in turn bring organ donation onto the political agenda of Washington legislatures, which will help to ensure that the laws will be altered.  
Psychological Reactance Theory also explains how adolescents will become motivated and passionate about the legislative issue. Psychological reactance theory explains how individuals tend to become psychologically aroused when their behavioral freedoms are threatened by overtly persuasive messages. The resulting reactance motivates attempts to restore the threatened freedoms (20). When minors realize that their decision to register as an organ donor has no legal autonomy, they will feel that the current laws threaten their freedoms. The information at the end of the television program provides adolescents with the resources in order to attempt to restore the threatened freedoms by signing a petition to get the law changed. 
            Advocating to give adolescents full autonomy over their organ donation decision may be controversial, and thus difficult to accomplish. In order to gain sufficient support for change, the intervention must unify people, rather than divide them on the issue. Donation of minors’ organs should not be presumed, in order to limit state intrusion at a time of parental grief (10). A law that would require the parent or guardian to make a decision regarding the minor’s organ donation decision at the time that the individual decides to register would be extremely successful in increasing donation. The law would work in accordance with the intervention, as it would enable family discussion about organ donation at the time that the adolescent is making the decision.
Defense of New Intervention 2: Celebrities are Effective Messengers for Adolescents
            Celebrities will be much more effective messengers for an adolescent health intervention. According to a recent national survey, 8-18 year olds spend on average 6-7 hours a day with some form of mass media (21).  It has also been found that public knowledge of a celebrity who endorses a health message is expected to influence the effects of the message on the intended audience (22). Spreading the intervention’s message through the media will ensure that adolescents will be exposed to the campaign regularly and repeatedly.
One of the effects of so much media use is the increasing importance that figures from the media and popular culture have in young people’s lives (23). Social Cognitive Theory describes the mechanism behind this phenomenon. The theory explains that people learn by observing others. Observation can take place directly in real life, but it can also occur vicariously (24). Adolescents can watch behavior on television and then apply this behavior in their own lives in a similar situation. When an adolescent gets their temporary license, they will remember the behavior that they saw on television by a celebrity, and this will motivate them to register as an organ donor. Celebrities provide cultural material for developing gender role identity, forming values and beliefs, and learning sexual and romantic scripts. Attachments to media figures in general are referred to as para social relationships, where, although all the interaction is one-way, the person feels as if they know the figure as a friend or colleague (23). This type of relationship perceived by the viewer supports social cognitive theory; an adolescent who perceives a celebrity as a peer will be more likely to want to apply observed behavior in their own lives.
             Another way that celebrities are a powerful message source for adolescents is because of the similarities that young adults perceive to exist. Research has shown that similarity between the message source and receiver increases liking, and liking another person increases the tendency to like objects that the other person likes. Similarity also enhances the communicator’s credibility, which further increases the force towards compliance. Attraction to the communicator is another well-known force towards compliance (25). Celebrities considered to be attractive role models by the public are expected to have the strongest influence on public attitudes and behavior (22).
Celebrities are the ideal messengers for adolescent campaigns, as they are recognizable, attractive, likeable, and perceived to be similar to young adults. Using a messenger that is well-liked and popular among adolescents will be much more influential on producing behavioral changes than messengers who are credible but un-relatable. All of these characteristics combined will make it more probable that adolescents will get involved in the legislation fight and register as an organ donor.
Defense of New Intervention 3: A Group Level Model Will Facilitate Behavioral Change
            The intervention must make organ donation behavior and discussion a more regular component of society. A group level model will be more likely to shift social norms and make organ donation a more prominent topic and behavior. According to the Social Norms Theory, individuals use their perceptions of peer norms as the standard against which to compare their own behaviors. People measure the appropriateness of their behavior by how far away they are from the norm (26). The campaign will create the perception that deciding to register as an organ donor at the time that you receive your temporary license is standard adolescent behavior. Shifting social norms will also help to gain support for creating new legislation that increases adolescent organ donation.
 A group level model that alters social norms will reduce the stigma associated with discussing organ donation, and make the issue a more ordinary topic of conversation. If organ donation becomes more popular in television, media, and politics, the negative misconceptions about donation will be replaced by the knowledge portrayed in the campaign. People often discuss current events, what they see on television, or read in the paper. Once organ donation enters the media, popular culture, and politics, discussion about donation will improve dramatically.
            Increased discussion will improve the likelihood that parents and guardians will follow an adolescent’s choice to be an organ donor. Conversation makes it much easier for the family to make the decision at the time of death, as it gives the family assurance and confidence in their choice (27). Family members agree to organ donation in well over 90% of the cases where family members have some indication of the wishes of the person who has died. Without communication, even a signed donation card may prove ineffective in reducing the need for organs available for transplantation (17). A group level model that targets everyone and not just the donor will be more successful at increasing adolescent organ donation.
Conclusion
            Improving organ donation rates is a very difficult issue to address. Many states have established easier ways to recruit and register new donors, but the waiting list for organs grows longer every day (10). Adolescents represent a large potential organ donor pool that has yet to be successfully targeted. An intervention that aims to increase organ donor registration amongst adolescents must also focus efforts on securing parental and guardian support. A campaign that aims to improve organ donation among adolescents must use effective messengers, promote knowledge and awareness on a group level, and alter social norms. This intervention will improve adolescent organ donor registration and ensure that their intended behavior is ultimately followed.


REFERENCES
1. Berkowitz, I.D., et al. The physician’s role in discussing organ donation with families.
Ovid 2003; 31(5):9.
2. Schnitzler, M.A, et al. The Life-Years Saved by a Deceased Organ Donor. American
journal of transplantation 2005; 5(9): 2289-2296.
3. Sirois, B.C., S.F. Sears, et al. Do new drivers equal new donors? An examination of
factors influencing organ donation attitudes and behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Behavioral medicine 2005; 28(2): 201-212.
4. OPTN/SRTR. Deceased Donor Characteristics, 2000 to 2009. OPTN/SRTR Annual
Report, 2010
5. Weaver, M., C. Spigner, et al. Knowledge and opinions about organ donation among
urban high school students; pilot test of a health education program. Clinical
transplantation 2010; 14(4): 292-303
6. Kaiser Family Foundation. Washington: Rate of Teen Deaths (15-19) per 100,000
Teenagers, 2008: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008
7. Kaiser Family Foundation. Washington: Number of Deaths per 100,000 Population,
2008: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008
8. Washington State Department of Licensing. Organ Donor. Washington: Washington
State Department of Licensing.
9. Morley, M.T. Proxy consent to organ donation by incompetents. The Yale Law
Journal 2002; 111(5): 1215-1249
10. Fentimen, L. Organ Donation as National Service: A Proposed Federal Organ
Donation Law 2009.
11. Bonnie, R.J. and M.E. O’Connell. Media Intervention Impact: Evidence and
Promising Strategies 2004.
12. Dorey, E. and J. McCool. The role of the media in influencing children’s nutritional perceptions. Qualitative Health Research 2009; 19(5): 645-654
13. Bastien, S., A.J. Flisher, et al. 9 Peer Education for Adolescent Reproductive Health.
Promoting adolescent sexual and reproductive health in East and Southern Africa 2008; 185.
14. Juarez, P., D. Schlundt, et al. A conceptual framework for reducing risky teen driving
behaviors among minority youth. Injury Prevention 2006; 12(suppl 1): i49.
15. Morgan, S., J. Miller, et al. Signing cards, saving lives: An evaluation of the worksite
organ donation promotion project. Communication Monographs 2002; 69(3):
253-273.
16.  Radecki, C.M. and J.Jaccard. Psychological aspects of organ donation: A critical
review and synthesis of individual and next-of-kin donation decisions. Health
Psychology; Health Psychology 1997; 16(2):182.
17. Morgan, S.E. and J.K.Miller. Beyond the organ donor card: The effect of knowledge,
attitudes, and values on willingness to communicate about organ donation to family members. Health Communication 2002; 14(1): 121-134
18. Brown, N. and C. Deegan. The public disclosure of environmental performance
information- a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 1998; 29: 21-42
19. Walgrave, S. and P. Van Aest. The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda
setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 2006; 56(1): 88-109.
20. Miller, C.H., L.T. Lane, et al. Psychological reactance and promotional health
messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research 2007; 33(2): 219-240
21. Brown, J.D. and E.M. Witherspoon. The mass media and American adolescents’
health. Journal of Adolescent Health 2002; 31(6): 153-170.
22. Brown, W.J. and M.D. Basil. Media celebrities and public health: Responses to
behaviors. Health Communication 1995; 7(4); 343-370.
23. Giles, D.C. and J. Maltbyle. The role of media figures in adolescent development;
Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and Individual differences 2004; (4): 814-822.
24. Stern, S.R. Messages from teens on the big screen: Smoking, drinking, and drug use
in teen-centered films. Journal of Health Communication 2005; 10(4): 331-346.
25. Silvia, P.J. Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and
reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005; 27(3): 227-284.
26. Burroughs, T.E., B.A. Hong, et al. The stability of family decisions to consent or
refuse organ donation: would you do it again? Psychosomatic medicine  1998; 60(2): 156-162.
27. Schultz, P.W., J.M. Nolan, et al. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive
power of social norms. Psychological Science 2007; 18(5): 429-434.

Labels: , , , ,

The Wasteful and Deadly American Approach to Childbirth: How Social Science has created, and can save, a broken system - Amanda Zinn


           The American Healthcare system, while sophisticated and advanced in many ways, is far behind that of the world's industrialized countries in one of the most important indicators of health, the infant mortality rate. According to the CDC, the United States ranks 30th in the world, falling behind most of Europe and other nations throughout the Middle East and Asia. (1) When comparing the number of infants born preterm, or before they have fully developed in the mother's womb, the numbers are even more alarming. In 2004, 1 in 8 infants in the U.S. were born preterm, compared to 1 in 18 in Ireland and 1 in 16 in France. (1) And then there are the comparisons of cost.  Similar to many other healthcare financial comparisons, Americans spend substantially more on all maternal care than other countries.  In 2011, the U.S. spent twice as much as the next most expensive country on the natural delivery of a baby, $15,236 compared with $8,495 in Switzerland and less than $3,000 in France, Spain, and Germany. (2) When comparing c-sections, performed in nearly one-third of all U.S. births, the U.S. also spends twice as much as the rest and nearly seven times that of many European countries. (2, 3) To add to this, the Surgeon General estimates that each child born preterm comes with a $51,600 price tag, sending the costs of the failing U.S. maternal care system through the roof. (4)
            In an effort to tackle these exorbitant costs and poor outcomes, various stakeholders have teamed together, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, the Health Resources and Services Administration, NIH and other groups such as the March of Dimes, to form the Strong Start Initiative. The priorities of the effort are two-fold: A nationwide public and private partnership to spread awareness about the best practices to reduce preterm birth as well as testing enhanced prenatal care models to reduce the rate of preterm births for at-risk women. (5) The initiative also intends to decrease the number of elective preterm births (most commonly through cesarean sections) and save money for the U.S. health care system. Medicaid pays for almost half of the nation's births every year, therefore even a 10% reduction in preterm deliveries would equal $75 million in savings. (6) This program, however, is simply not enough to change the mindset and habits of U.S. mothers, physicians and the public. 
This paper will analyze why the American approach to childbirth has spiraled out of control, costing the U.S. millions of dollars each year and endangering the lives of mothers and children. Specifically, Social Norms Theory, Self-Efficacy and Role Theory will be used to understand how women have come to solely rely on physicians and hospitals in childbirth. It will also explore how Diffusion of Innovations Theory has caused the U.S. to have the highest rate of c-sections ever reported. (3) Additionally, these and other theories will be applied to drive a solution: the use and reimbursement of a traditional and familiar resource, Certified Midwives. By utilizing the skills and expertise of Midwifery services, the U.S. Healthcare system can save millions of dollars and more importantly, countless lives.
Flaw #1: Social Norms Theory and Self-efficacy have Caused Women to Believe They Can't Give Birth without a Physician or Outside of a Hospital
            Prior to the middle of the 20th Century, the normal custom for U.S. mothers was to give birth at home, under the care of midwives. However, as the practice of medical obstetrics grew and hospitals catered their services to maternal care, the percentage of births taking place in hospitals steadily increased. In 1940, 56% of U.S. births took place in Hospitals. In 1969, the number was at 99%, where it remains today. (7) Childbirth is now the single most common reason for hospitalization in the U.S. (8) While evolving and advancing medical practices can account for some of these changes, Social Norms Theory explains why the location of birth so drastically changed over a period of 30 years in the U.S. and remains consistent today.
            Social Norms Theory states that individuals base their actions and behavior in direct and meaningful ways on perceived social norms. Descriptive norms, in particular, are those that explain the behavior of the general public and research has shown that people do not want to deviate from these standards. (9) During the 20th Century, the norms of how women should be giving birth began to shift. Doctors were at the forefront, no longer categorizing birth as a normal, natural experience for a woman to go through, but instead identifying it with illness. Like most other illnesses, the solution was to deal with childbirth in the hospital setting, under the aid of a physician. (10) As the medical world touted their ability to "heal" women from the pain of childbirth, the perceived norm (which may have been inaccurate at the time but was widely believed) became to deliver a baby in a hospital. (11) The norm of associating birth with illness even continued after the baby is born, as women were told to stay in the hospital another night, made to feel as though they are sick. (12) As more women adopted a hospital birth, the concept spread across families and networks, as Mary Nolan wrote, "women still learn about birth and babycare from their own mothers, from their sisters and other female relatives" (Nolan, 2008) Once physicians and hospitals identified the necessity of women to give birth in a hospital, this became the perceived standard for generations to come.
            Along with Social Norms Theory, self-efficacy can be applied to explain why childbirth in the U.S. is centered on hospitals and physicians. Self-efficacy refers to individuals' perceptions of the control they have over their motivations and behaviors, as well as their capabilities to deal with taxing situations. (13) As Albert Bandura writes, "people's belief about their capabilities affect what they choose to do, how much effort they mobilize, [and] how long they will persevere in the face of difficulties." (13) In the context of childbirth, women have been made to believe that the process is not natural and they don't possess the capabilities to safely deliver a baby on their own. High-tech maternity care has dehumanized childbirth and made women believe that they must seek medical assistance when in reality, advanced interventions are costly, dangerous and often unnecessary, particularly for low-risk births. (14) In public health, self-efficacy theory is often used to promote good behavior and provide individuals with the knowledge, as well as the confidence and control, to deal with challenging personal health situations. (13) In childbirth, however, self-efficacy has turned against women, making them believe they don't have the control to choose their method of birth and must follow the direction of the doctor, even if it goes against their beliefs or preferences. (12)
Flaw #2: Through Role Theory, Physicians have emerged as the Dominant Authority in American Childbirth Practices
            In the United States, the birth of children is overwhelmingly attended by physicians. In 2003, there were approximately 4.1 million births in the U.S. and nearly 3.8 million were attended by physicians. (15) This equates to more than 92% of births, leaving less than 8% of births attended by alternative providers, like Midwives. Europe, on the other hand, has midwives in attendance at 75-80% of births. (8) Numerous studies have compared the birth outcomes of physician-attended births versus certified nurse midwife births and have found that midwives have equal or lower risks of infant mortality and low birth weight in their deliveries. Additionally, midwives spend, on average, twice the amount of time with patients during pregnancy compared to physicians, and follow a more personalized approach to prenatal care and delivery. (16) Despite this, physicians are consistently seen as the authority for childbirth in the U.S. for expectant mothers. The concept of Role Theory can explain this paradox.
Role Theory stipulates that the knowledge of one's identity or social position can be a powerful indicator of their behavior. Much of individuals' behavior can be predicted by which category they fall into in a specific situation, organization or other social context and this can change if the context changes. While debate has occurred over whether an individual's role must be real or theoretical to predict behavior, Role Theory is useful in understanding how power is peacefully exercised between individuals. (17) Individuals in high-ranking positions yield power because of the prestige of their positions and "their considerable access and control over information." (17) In the context of childbirth, physicians have utilized the prestige of their position as a doctor and their control over information to become the dominant authority on how and where women should deliver babies. As childbirth moved to a medically-dominated practice, it became the property of male physicians, identifying their roles as the authority and placing women in the role of workers, yielding power to the men in control. Childbirth historically occurred between a woman caretaker and a birthing mother but when medical advances intervened, midwives were deemed by the medical community as dirty and ignorant, even associated with witchcraft. (18) With this stereotype and an inability to compete against the perceived expertise of a doctor, midwives lost their role as the primary birth attendant. Today, gender plays a less significant role in the authority of childbirth but physicians have retained their power. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that "as physicians, [they] have an obligation to provide families with information about the risk, benefits…and limitations of…different maternity care settings" and recommends hospitals as the safest place for labor and delivery. (19) Despite substantial research showing the life-saving and cost-cutting benefits of births outside of a hospital with alternative providers, as well as the favorable experience for birthing mothers, physicians have utilized their power and prestige to keep the practice to their advantage.
Flaw #3: Diffusion of Innovations Theory has inaccurately Glamorized Cesarean Delivery, despite its Costly Risks and Implications
            Cesarean delivery (C-section) is the alternative to traditional vaginal birth and involves major abdominal surgery, removing the baby from the mother's uterus through incision. (3) The World Health Organization recommends that a country's c-section rate should not be higher than 10-15%. (20) In the United States, however, the current c-section rate is 32%, or approximately one-third of all births. (3) While incidences occur where a c-section is medically necessary, such as when there is fetal distress, if the baby is positioned in a way that he or she cannot fit through the mother's pelvis or if there is a risk of the transferring of an infection such as HIV, the concern, both from a cost and safety perspective, is the number of elective procedures. (21) C-sections carry a host of complications for mothers and children when compared to vaginal birth, including but not limited to: increased risk of hypertension and respiratory distress syndrome in the newborn, low birth weight and preterm births for the newborn, rehospitalization for the mother for uterine infection and wound complications, blood transfusion, and death for the mother or infant. Additionally, research has shown consistent emotional and psychological effects of c-sections for the mother including depression, low self-esteem and a mother's inability to respond to a newborn's needs. (21, 22) Despite the numerous risks, millions of mothers and doctors in the U.S. elect for c-section procedures when there is no medical need. The "trend" of c-sections can be explained through Diffusion of Innovations Theory.
            Diffusion of Innovations Theory has been repeatedly explored in the context of healthcare. Quite simply, it refers to the adoption of different innovations by individuals and how these innovations spread through groups and across populations. (23) Everett Rogers states that innovations must have certain characteristics and go through a process of time to be adopted. The characteristics of innovations that make them favorable to individuals to adopt are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Innovations are first adopted by innovators, then early adopters, followed by the early and late majority and lastly, the laggards. (24) Elective c-section has many perceived characteristics that fit the factors for widespread adoptability in Diffusion of Innovations Theory and this, coupled with its endorsement by many celebrities, has made it an attractive option for mothers.
            During the twentieth century, as doctors' confidence in surgery increased and the use of anesthesia became more common, the purpose of a c-section shifted. While it had previously only been performed in emergency situations, it was now being touted as on option before a woman even went into labor. Obstetricians advertised c-sections as a safe, painless alternative to vaginal childbirth and even appealed to fathers, as they could be present during a c-section. (25) C-sections became an option that had a relative advantage and an observability to be safer and easier than the current practice. As more women heard about this alternative to the traditional delivery of a baby and had their fears of the pain of childbirth dissipated, the procedure was adopted by more expectant mothers. Furthermore, women who had a c-section once were much more likely, both because of medicine and preference, to have c-sections for future births. (25) Additionally, celebrities, as both innovators and influencers, have contributed to selling the compatibility of this innovation. Elective c-sections by celebrities like Beyonce and Posh Spice, commonly known as the "Posh push", make the concept attractive because women can have babies at the time that they choose and preserve the shape of their body in the process.  (26) Physicians, who also benefit from the convenience and increased reimbursement of these procedures, even reported a surge in elective c-sections following the news that Posh Spice had three. (27) Thus, a surgery that started as an emergency alternative to save women's lives in childbirth quickly spread through Diffusion of Innovations to become the trendy, easy thing to do, despite its enormous expense and risk.
New Intervention: Using, Reimbursing and Collaborating with Midwives
            With the worst outcomes of all industrialized nations and an enormously expensive approach, amongst a Healthcare system that already spends far more than the rest of the world, the need to address the system of maternal delivery and care in the United States is real. While the Strong Start Initiative acknowledges the need for change, the program is simply not significant enough to make a real difference. To truly ensure that American babies are delivered in the safest manner possible, our system must address the needs of the mother and baby and do so without costly and unnecessary intervention. Mothers and doctors must turn to a familiar and underutilized resource, the midwife. A midwife is a health care professional who can provide medical services to women at any point in their lives, but most specifically during pregnancy, baby delivery, and following birth. Midwives most often provide care for uncomplicated pregnancies, but can make referrals in life threatening situations. (28) Numerous studies have shown that women "whose pregnancies are managed by midwives generally receive excellent care with lower rates of costly medical interventions" and feel much more relaxed and at ease, compared to giving birth with a physician. (28,12) In order to utilize their services, a program must be established which aligns Midwives with obgyns, physicians and hospitals to ensure personalized and complete care for a woman throughout her pregnancy and birth, as well as an additonal medical resource should anything go wrong. By reintegrating midwives into the maternal care system in the U.S., women can feel more empowered with their birth and choose the method that works best for their situation.  Midwives can also restablish themselves as a voice of authority for childbirth and help lower the U.S. rate of c-sections, increasing the safety of deliveries in the America and controlling the vast amount of unncessary spending in our system.
Addressing Flaw #1: Shifting Social Norms and Utilizing Illusion of Control to Help Women Regain their Power in Child Delivery
            While physicians managed to move the birth movement inside hospital doors and under their control during the twentieth century, the trend can be reversed. The norm in many other countries is to deliver babies with the help of a midwife at various locations, including the home, birthing centers, or hospitals. In fact, midwives are present to deliver approximately 80% of babies born in the rest of the world, despite a presence in less than 8% of U.S. Births. (29, 8) Additionally, their attendance is not related to the economic state of the country, as midwives are present in much of Europe. (29) Studies have also shown that many women in America are dissatisfied with current routine hospital care, feeling that treatment from medical personal is impersonal and the increasing use of technology is intimidating. (12) Therefore, a shift in social norms to using midwives would not only be appropriate given the typical practice in the rest of the world, but also essential to address women's frustration with the current state.
            In order to encourage and facilitate the use of midwives, partnerships must be established between midwives and local doctors' offices and hospitals to make access to midwives easier for women. In many states, midwives are currently not reimbursed by Medicaid and private insurance to work independently, so utilizing their services requires out-of-pocket expenses as well as a shift from a woman's normal doctor. (30) In many European countries, pregnant women receive a comprehensive package of services from a general practitioner, obstetrician and midwife. (29) While this will prove more difficult to achieve in the United States with a disjointed healthcare system, financial incentives (through shared reimbursement) for all medical professionals involved can make a program like this feasible. For physicians, who are already overworked and have little time to dedicate to personalized care in birth, utilizing midwives would allow them to free their schedule from low-risk pregnancies and give them more resources to concentrate on care for women with unique or dangerous pregnancies that need medical intervention. (16) For many obgyns, years are spent with a woman for her normal health needs before pregnancy is even a question. Once a patient becomes pregnant, her needs are much more frequent, time-consuming and costly and having additional support from another medical professional would be enormously beneficial. The midwife, who often has a limited scope of practice, would have access to more women, increasing their ability to perform care and providing them with the financial ground to expand services. (31) Lastly, the patient, in having options and a multi-level support system, would feel more cared for throughout the pregnancy and birthing process and less uncomfortable with forced medical procedures. Insurance companies would also have an interest in reimbursing a system like this, as overall reimbursement expenses would significantly drop with midwives providing care of equal or higher quality with lower costs. (16) As more women were exposed to this patient-centered and personalized option, the social norms would shift to make midwives a standardized approach, rather than an anomaly as they stand today.
            In addition to utilizing midwifery services through a shift in Social Norms, the program can uitlize the Illusion of Control to emphasize that women should have a choice in this exceptionally important aspect of their lives. Illusion of control refers to the tendency of individuals to believe they have some control or influence over the outcomes of situations, when in reality they actually have very little. Effective public health campaigns, therefore, should aim to help the targeted population restore control. Research has shown that while women value a sense of control over the birth process, most feel that they often have little information to make decisions and little control over the steps taken by the medical authority. (16, 32) Midwives, however, "take a hands-off approach to the management of childbirth… [and] rather than giving a pregnant woman orders, a midwife seeks to facilitate healthy pregnancies and deliveries in conjunction with the client." (31) The midwife serves to work with the pregnant mother to find the method that works best for her, enabling a personalized approach and restoring control to the woman in labor. Marketing this program as a means for women to take control back in this vitally significant process will encourage women to choose a partnered approach with a midwife.
Addressing Flaw #2: Reestablishing Midwives as the Birthing Authority
            Years of lobbying and education on the part of physicians and groups advocating for them helped establish physicians as the authority of birth in the United States.  They utilized their respected positions to take the leading role in this practice and associated themselves with advances in medicine to make women feel as though their lives or their babies were in danger without physician assistance. (31) At the same time, midwives were not unified in their practice and were overtaken by dominant physicians, losing their credibility to stereotypes and fear. (18) However, with research showing that midwives have equal if not better outcomes for childbirth with less cost, midwives can reestablish themselves in a position of authority over the process, while still respecting the wishes of the expectant mother. (12, 31) In order to facilitate a partnership with the rest of the medical community while still maintaining their methods, midwives must have a national board of certification. The current certification at the state level yields disparity between standards, but a national board would encourage physicians and obgyns to treat midwives with the same professional respect as the rest of the medical community. With this respect, collaboration could be achieved, similarly to how it's standardized in other countries. (16, 29) A national board of certification would also unite midwives of all types under one umbrella. With unified power, they could have the same resources to lobby legislation that supported their cause and gain accessibility in the public eye. With rising insurance premiums and escalating costs, Americans continue to seek out resources to save money on healthcare without compromising quality. Midwives are a concrete example of a way to cut costs and better outcomes, but without a unified platform, their message of limited intervention and patient-centered care is not well-known. Delivering this message with the understanding and support of the medical community would return midwives to their rightful place as a trusted authority on childbirth.
  Addressing Flaw #3: Cutting the American Rates of Cesarean Section
            Of the numerous problems with the U.S. maternal care system, the rate of c-sections requires the most urgent attention. At a rate three times higher than the recommended amount from WHO and a cost of up to $25,000 per procedure, the current American practice of frequent c-sections must be curtailed. (20, 2) With physicians receiving higher reimbursement and performing faster deliveries with c-sections, they are not going to be at the forefront for change. (27) To drive change and make normal, vaginal births popular again, midwives must lead the way.
            With an established partnership between physicians, obgyns and midwives, midwives must champion Diffusion of Innovations Theory to make a normal birth preferable again and spread awareness about the dangers and costs of c-sections. Numerous studies have shown that regardless of whether the setting is in or out of a hospital, women who go into labor with a midwife have considerably lower rates of c-sections compared to going into labor with a physician. (33) This is because for many perceived reasons for c-sections, midwives take the approach that problems can be prevented or solved with less intrusive measures. (33) Serving as an advocate against c-sections, midwives can inform women from the early stages, or even before the onset of pregnancy, about the risks and costs of the procedure. Instead of touting the physicians' philosophy that c-sections are more convenient, safe and painless, midwives can share personal stories about women they know who've been hospitalized, suffered psychological stress or even died from a c-section. (21, 22) Diffusion of Innovations Theory can then be applied to birth with a midwife, stressing the compatibility of this method, as it can take place wherever the mother chooses, and the relative advantage for women with shorter recovery rates and more emotionally supportive experiences compared to a doctor facilitated c-section. (22) As midwives put more women at ease about a natural childbirth, this preferred method would continue to spread, as the more women who don't have a c-section in their first pregnancy, the less likely they will have one for future incidences. (25) Finally, rather than news reports about celebrities who choose c-sections, the number of natural childbirths could be restored through celebrities advocating this method. The same way the popularity of c-sections spread, celebrities can serve as Influencers and Innovators by returning to this traditional form of birth and promoting the use of midwives. With Innovators adopting a normal method of birth and Midwives spreading awareness about the risks of c-sections as well as the advantages of a natural childbirth, the dangerous and costly rate of c-sections in the U.S. can be reduced to more manageable levels.
Conclusion
            The growing costs and risks of the current approach to delivering babies in the United States must change. Social Norms Theory and self-efficacy helped form a system that associates birth with illness which must be "cured" through hospitalization and physician directed procedures, and makes women believe they are incapable of handling childbirth without medical interventions. U.S. Physicians, despite their lack of personal care to women during pregnancy and labor and their rising infant mortality rates, have used Role Theory to emerge as the dominant authority in how childbirth should take place. Finally, Diffusions of Innovation Theory can help us understand why one in three women in the U.S., many by their own choice, undergoes a costly and risky c-section, rather than a natural birth. The system can be saved, though, by channeling the expertise and practice of midwives to make U.S. maternal care safer for babies and mothers, as well as provide necessary cost reductions. In countries throughout Europe and the rest of the world, midwives work in a collaborative system with other healthcare professionals and hospitals to provide comprehensive, personalized care to each expectant mother. Forming a program like this in the U.S., which provides financial incentives to each person involved, will restore midwives to their rightful place as child delivery experts, give women the choices and individual attention they need for a birth with positive outcomes and help significantly lower the excessive rates of c-section in the United States. Building a system that embraces and utilizes the skills and practices of Midwives will serve as a significant way to control costs in the U.S. healthcare system, but more importantly, will save the lives of countless mothers and babies born each year.

References

Macdorman, M. F. (2009). Behind International Rankings of Intant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe. Hyattsville, MD: Center for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Health Statistics.
(2011). 2011 Comparative Price Report Medical and Hospital Fees by Country. International Federation of Health Plans.
Menacker, F. a. (2010). Recent Trends in Cesarean Delivery in the United States. Hyattsville, MD: Center for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Health Statistics.
Galson, S. K. (2008). Preterm Birth as a Public Health Initiative. Surgeon General's Perspectives: Public Health Reports.
Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns. (2012, March). Retrieved April 5, 2012, from Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation: http://innovations.cms.gov/initiatives/strong-start/
HHS launches Strong Start initiative to increase healthy deliveries and reduce preterm births. (2012, February 8). Department of Health and Human Services.
Boucher, D. e. (2009). Staying Home to Give Birth: Why Women in the United States Choose Home Birth. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health , 119-126.
Supporting Access to Midwifery Services in the United States. (2000, January 1). Retrieved April 3, 2012, from American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=208
Schultz, W. e. (2005). The Constructive, Destructive and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science.
Nolan, M. L. (2008). Atenatal education - where next? Journal of Advanced Nursing.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Applications of Social Norms Theory to Other Health and Social Justice Issues. In The Social Norms Apporach to Preventing School and Colleage Age Substance Abuse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, O. e. (2000). Women's experiences of maternity care: satisfaction or passivity? Social Science & Medicine , 103-113.
Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived Self-Efficacy In the Exercise of Control Over AIDS Infection. Evaluation and Program Planning , pp. 9-17.
Wagner, M. (2001). Fish can't see water: the need to humanize birth. International Jounral of Gynecology & Obstetrics , S25-S37.
Lives birth by place of Delivery, and Attendant. (2003). Retrieved April 10, 2012, from Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/natfinal2003.annvol1_24.pdf
MacDorman, M. F. (1998). Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 310-317.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 349-364.
Ehrenreich, B. a. (2010). Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers. New York: The Feminist Press.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gyncecologists Issues Opnion on Planned Home Births. (2011, January 20). Retrieved March 30, 2012, from The American College of Obstetricians and Gyncecologists Issues: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2011/The_American_College_of_Obstetricians_and_Gynecologists_Issues_Opinion_on_Planned_Home_Births
Chaillet, N. e. (2007, October). Identifying barriers and facilitators towards implementing guideline sto reduce casearean section rates in Quebec. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/10/06-039289/en/
Harmon, K. (2010, January 11). Elective cesarean sections are too risky, WHO study says. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from Scentific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/01/11/elective-cesarean-sections-are-too-risky-who-study-says/
Gamble, J. A. (2001). Women's Preference for a Cesarean Section: Incidence and Associated Factors. BIRTH.
Greenhalgh, T. e. (2004). Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly , 581-629.
Rogers, E. M. (1997). Diffusion of Innovations Theory. National Insitutes of Health.
Sewell, J. E. (1993). Cesarean Section - A Breif History. National Library of Medicine.
James, S. D. (2012, January 9). Beyonce says Birth 'Natural', Despite Cesarean Reports. Medical Unit: ABC News . ABC News.
Girion, L. (2009, May 17). More C-sections, more problems. Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles Times.
Weigers, T. A. (1998). Maternity Care in the Netherlands: The Changing Home Birth Rate. BIRTH ,25:3
Feldman, G. G. (1987). Birth and the Newborn Infanct. In G. G. Feldman, The Complete Handbook of Pregnancy: A Step-By-Step Guide from Preconception to the First Weeks Following Birth. Pearson.
Medicare Carriers Manual. (2002, March 12). Department of Health and Human Services Centers ofr Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Hermer, L. D. (2003). Midwifery: Strategies on the Road to Universal Legalization. Health Matrix: Journal of Law Medicine.
Lazarus, E. S. (2009). What Do Women Want?: Issues of Choice, Control and Class in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Medical Anthropology Quarterly .
Sakala, C. (1993). Midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth settings: How do they reduce unnecessary cesarean section births? Social Science & Medicine , 1233-1250.

Labels: , , , ,