Available from: http://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1511-5 92. Minooee S, Cummins A, Sims DJ, Foureur M, Travaglia J. Scoping review of the impact of birth trauma on clinical decisions of midwives. J Eval Clin Pract [Internet]. 2020 Aug 10;26(4):1270–9. Available from: https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13335 93. Provost S, Smyth A, Rupnarain T, Mailey S, Ward H, Jefford E. Do personality traits impact upon midwives’ decision-making and practice? In: Empowering decision-making in midwifery. London: Routledge; 2019. 94. Croskerry P. The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. Canadeian J Anesth. 2005;R1-8. 95. Fontein-Kuipers Y, Den Hartog-van Veen H, Klop L, Zondag L. Conflicting values experienced by Dutch midwives – dilemmas of loyalty, responsibility and selfhood. Clin Res Obstet Gynecol. 2018;1(1–12). 96. Noseworthy DA, Phibbs SR, Benn CA. Towards a relational model of decision-making in midwifery care. Midwifery [Internet]. 2013 Jul;29(7):e42–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0266613812001222 97. Rietveld AL, De Groot CJM, Teunissen PW. Decision-making during trial of labour after caesarean; A qualitative study with gynaecologists. Spracklen CN, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2018 Jul 18;13(7):e0199887. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199887 98. Lupton D. Risk. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2013. 99. Kennedy HP, Yoshida S, Costello A, Declercq E, Dias MA, Duff E, et al. Asking different questions: Research priorities to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2016 Nov;4(11):e777–9. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214109X16301838 100. Kennedy HP, Cheyney M, Dahlen HG, Downe S, Foureur MJ, Homer CSE, et al. Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Birth [Internet]. 2018;45(3):222–31. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29926965 101. Wammes JJG, Van den Akker-van Marle ME, Verkerk EW, Van Dulmen SA, Westert GP, Van Asselt ADI, et al. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list. BMCMed [Internet]. 2016 Dec 25;14(1):196. Available from: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral. com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0747-7 102. Aven T, Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res [Internet]. 2009 Jan;12(1):1–11. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669870802488883 103. Richardson DK, Gabbe SG, Wind Y. Decision analysis of high-risk patient referral. Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 1984 Apr;63(4):496–501. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6700895 104. Dahlen H. Dancing in the grey zone between normality and risk. Pract Midwife [Internet]. 2016 Jun;19(6):16, 18–20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27451486 105. Berger TM. Decisions in the gray zone: Evidence-based or culture-based? J Pediatr [Internet]. 2010 Jan;156(1):7– 9. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022347609008518 106. Aven T, Pörn K. Expressing and interpreting the results of quantitative risk analyses. Review and discussion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf [Internet]. 1998 Jul;61(1–2):3–10. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0951832097000604 107. Aven T. On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf [Internet]. 2015 Aug;140:116–21. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0951832015001131 182 7 CHAPTER 7
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw