IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v19y1984i11p1197-1200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is, must be best: A research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision

Author

Listed:
  • Porter, Maureen
  • Macintyre, Sally

Abstract

During a study of innovations in antenatal care it was found that overall levels of satisfaction with care were high. Pregnant women appeared to assume that whatever arrangements they had experienced were the best arrangements possible and to be negative about innovations until they had experienced them. This response, which may be due to conservatism or deference, is examined in relation to aspects of general practice and hospital care, and its implications for the evaluation of health care are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Porter, Maureen & Macintyre, Sally, 1984. "What is, must be best: A research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(11), pages 1197-1200, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:11:p:1197-1200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90370-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fawsitt, Christopher Godfrey & Bourke, Jane & Lutomski, Jennifer E. & Meaney, Sarah & McElroy, Brendan & Murphy, Rosemary & Greene, Richard Anthony, 2017. "What women want: Exploring pregnant women’s preferences for alternative models of maternity care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 66-74.
    2. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    3. Alshyab, Nooh, 2013. "The Political Economy of Reform and Development of the Washington Consensus," MPRA Paper 46014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    5. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    6. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:11:p:1197-1200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.