Research Paper
“How did that happen?” Public responses to women with mobility disability during pregnancy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.02.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Little is known about current societal attitudes toward women with significant mobility disability who are visibly pregnant.

Objective

To use qualitative descriptive analysis methods to examine perceptions of women with significant mobility disability about how strangers reacted to their visible pregnancies.

Methods

In late 2013, we conducted 2-h telephone interviews with 22 women with significant mobility difficulties who had delivered babies within the prior 10 years. The semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol addressed wide-ranging pregnancy-related topics, including statements from strangers. Most participants were recruited through social networks, coming from 17 states nationwide. We used NVivo to sort the texts for content analysis.

Results

The women's mean (standard deviation) age was 34.8 (5.3) years; most were white, well-educated, and higher income, although half had Medicaid during their pregnancies; and 18 used wheeled mobility aids. Eighteen women described memorable interactions with strangers relating to their pregnancies or newborn babies. Strangers' statements fell into six categories: (1) curious; (2) intrusively and persistently curious; (3) hostile, including concerns that taxpayers would end up supporting the mother and child; (4) questioning woman's competence as a potential parent; (5) oblivious, not recognizing visible pregnancy or motherhood; and (6) positive. Many women reported strangers asking how their pregnancy had happened. The women doubted that visibly pregnant women without disabilities evoke the same reactions from strangers.

Conclusions

Women with mobility disability who are visibly pregnant may perceive reactions from strangers that appear intrusive. Planning ahead for handling such encounters could reduce the stresses of these interactions.

Section snippets

Methods

The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)/Partners HealthCare Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this research. This study was part of a larger exploratory, mixed methods investigation of pregnancy among women with chronic mobility disability, which had 3 components: analyses of large survey data9, 10, 11; reviews of MGH obstetrical electronic medical records; and qualitative descriptive analyses of in-depth individual interviews, considering a range of topics.15 The IRB-approved use of

Results

Table 1 presents characteristics of the 22 interviewees. The vast majority were white, non-Hispanic, and well-educated; half had Medicaid insurance during their most recent pregnancy; and they came from 17 states nationwide. Eight had spinal cord injuries, 4 cerebral palsy, and the remainder had various other conditions. All women used assistive devices for mobility, 18 using wheeled mobility aids. Sixteen of the 22 women had at least one child three years of age or younger; all women had given

Discussion

Nearly all 22 women in this study described being accustomed to stares or comments from strangers because of their mobility disability. They have grown accustomed to handling or deflecting these public reactions, including by using humor, irony, and sarcasm. But when they became visibly pregnant or mothers of newborns, more than two-thirds of the women perceived new and different responses from the public. The interviewees saw that common thread as strangers viewing the co-occurrence of

References (26)

  • C. Signore et al.

    Pregnancy in women with physical disabilities

    Obstet Gynecol

    (2011)
  • L.I. Iezzoni et al.

    Prevalence of current pregnancy among US women with and without chronic physical disabilities

    Med Care

    (2013)
  • L.I. Iezzoni et al.

    Conditions causing disability and current pregnancy among US women with chronic physical disabilities

    Med Care

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development funded this study (Grant No. 1R21HD068756-02).

    View full text