A patient perspective in research on intercultural caring in maternity care: A meta-ethnography

Figures & data

Table I. Studies describing intercultural caring in maternity care included in meta-synthesis.

Author, year of Publication and country of study	Sample of informant	Culture or country	Data collection	Data analyses
Beine, Fullerton, Palinkas, and Anders (1995), USA	14 women	Somalia	Focus group, interviews	Content analysis
Berggren, Bergström, and Edberg (2006), Sweden	21 women	Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan	Interviews	Latent content analysis
Berry (1999), USA	16 women, 34 other	Mexican-American	Observation and interviews	Ethnonursing method
Bulman and McCourt (2002), UK	12 women + other	Somali	Semi-structured interviews, narrative approach, individual focus group	Texts coded and sorted to generate themes
Chalmers and Omer-Hashi (2002), Canada	388 women	Somali	Interviews, four open-ended questions about birth itself	Descriptive content analysis + quantitative analysis of frequency of women's comments
Cheung (2002), Scotland	10 women, 55 other	China	Semi-structured and unstructured interviews, participant observation two case comparison, group discussions + own experience	Comparative method
Chu (2005), Australia	25 women	China, Hong Kong, Taiwan	In-depth semi-structured, face-to-face and telephone interviews, field visit, focus group	Not specified (ethnography)
Davies and Bath (2001), UK	13 women	Somali	In-depth study, exploratory, focus group, semi-structured interviews	Variation of the constant comparative method
Essén et al. (2000), Sweden	15 women	Somali	Semi-structured open-ended interviews	Systematic text analysis
Granot et al. (1996), Israel	19 women	Ethiopian	Interviews	Constant comparative method
Herrel et al. (2004), USA	14 refugee women	Somali	Two focus group discussions, interview guide	Grouped into themes
Ito and Sharts-Hopko (2002), USA	Five women	Japanese	Open-ended interviews in home or by Telephone	Comparative content method
Jambunathan and Stewart (1995), USA	52 women	Hmong	Semi-structured interviews	Qualitative data “sensitization” method
Jeppesen and Tamer (1988), Denmark	12 women	Turkish	Partly structured interviews	Not specified
Liamputtong and Watson (2006), Australia	18 women	Cambodian, Lao, Vietnamese	In-depth interviews	Thematic analysis method, ethnographic
Lundberg and Gerezgiher (2008), Sweden	15 women	Eritrean	Semi-structured and open questions, in-depth interviews	Thematic analysis, ethnographic approach
Maputle and Jali (2006), South Africa	24 women	N. Sotho, Tsonga, Venda	Semi-structured in-depth interviews, unstructured conversations	Reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification, ethnographic
McCourt and Pearce (2000), UK	20 women	Bl. Carribean, African, South + East Asian, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern	Semi-structured narrative interviews	Texts analysed by open coding and grouping into conceptual areas and linking themes, NUD*IST, similar to grounded theory
McLeish (2005), UK	33 women asylum(s)	19 countries not specified	Semi-structured interviews	Not specified
Morgan (1996), USA	13 women, 33 other	African American	Interviews, participant observations	Ethnonursing
Nabb (2006), UK	10 women asylum(s), five other	Algeria, Congo, Angola, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq	Informal unstructured and semi-structured interviews	Not specified
Nøttveit (2000), Norway	Seven women	Pakistani	Interviews	Phenomenological, Giorgi's analysing method
Ny, Plantin, Karlsson, and Dykes (2007), Sweden	13 women	Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon	Focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews	Content analysis
Pearce (1998), USA	21 women	Puerto Rico, Dom. Rep., C. Am., PR + S. American	In-depth interviews	Constant comparison analysis
Reid and Taylor (2007), Republic of Ireland	13 women	Traveller	Unstructured non-directive interviews	Data-analysis was guided by an established framework
Reitmanova and Gustafson (2008), Canada	Six women	Five countries	In-depth semi-structured interviews	Two step process of content analysis
Rice (1999), Australia	27 women	Hmong	Individual in-depth interviews	Thematic analysis, ethnographic
Rice and Naksook (1998), Australia	30 women	Thai	Interviews, participant observations	Thematic analysis, ethnographic
Rice, Naksook, and Watson (1999), Australia	26 women	Thai	Interviews, participant observations	Thematic analysis, ethnographic
Sharts-Hopko (1995), Japan	20 women	American	Interviews	Comparative content analysis
Small, Rice, Yelland, and Lumely (1999), Australia	60 of 318 women	Vietnamese, Turkish, Filipino	Interviews, schedule adapted from postal questionnaire. Qualitative responses to open-ended questions	Statistical + qualitative analysis, quotations illustrating most common themes identified in coding
Tandon, Parillo, and Keefer (2005), USA	125 women	Hispanic	Semi-structured interviews	Statistical + qualitative Atlas.ti 4.1, descriptive open coding, inferential, and explanatory pattern coding
Templeton, Velleman, Persaud, and Milner (2003), UK	Six women, 19 + other	Bangladeshi, Indian, Portugal + mixed race	Semi-structured interviews, telephone and face-to-face, focus groups	Qualitative analysis, descriptive thematic analysis
Tsianakias and Liamputtong (2002), Australia	15 women	Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Singapore, Morocco, Pakistan	In-depth interviews	Thematic analysis
Vangen, Johansen, Sundby, Traeen, and Stray-Pedersen (2004), Norway	23 women, 36 other	Somali	In-depth interviews	Thematic analysis, interpretation
Wiklund, Aden, Högberg, Wikman, and Dahlgren (2000), Sweden	Nine women, seven men	Somali	Semi-structured or thematized interviews	Grounded theory technique
Woollett and Dosanjh-Matwala (1990a), England	32 women	Indian subcontinent	In-depth interviews	Qualitative and quantitative content analysis
Woollett and Dosanjh-Matwala (1990b), UK	32 women	Asian	Semi-structured interviews	Not specified: (Quantitative and qualitative content analysis?)
Yelland et al. (1998), Australia	60 of 318 women	Vietnamese, Turkish, Filipino	Interviews, schedule adapted from postal questionnaire	Statistic + two open questions collated and coded to common themes
Yeo, Fetters, and Maeda (2000), USA	11 couples	Japanese	In-depth interviews	Ethnographic method

Figure 1.  Opposite metaphors found in the material.