Bodies of risk: constructing motherhood in a mexican public hospital
Abstract
This article addresses the connection between risk and motherhood at an urban obstetrics hospital in Mexico. It primarily aims to explore the ways that clinicians define risk as well as how they conflate risk with bad motherhood. It discusses how clinicians' perceptions of their patients' social lives shape their interactions and decisions about the women's health. The study was based on interviews and participant observation in June 2008 and June-July 2011 with 71 obstetrical patients, 30 physicians, 9 nurses, and 12 midwives in the city of Puebla. Results show that birth itself was defined as a risky event, clinicians conflated social factors with biological factors in their management of risk, and the patients were a priori classified as bad mothers. This article proposes a reproductive habitus to explain the connection between health institutions, class, responsibility, blame, and clinical decision-making to analyze how risk is managed and blame enacted upon women's bodies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Significantly fewer studies focused on interprofessional or multidisciplinary teams (n=6), nurses (n=4), and medical students (n=4).
“It is worth noting that just under two-thirds (n=31)9 18 19 25 28 47 50–74 of research papers on HP SES implicit bias and decision-making focused on doctors/physicians, with significantly less studies focusing on interprofessional or multidisciplinary teams (n=6),75–80 nurses (n=4)29 81–83 and medical students (n=4).27 84–86”
From Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Manzer and Bell, Smith-Oka and Shawahna et al's studies identified the adverse impact of stereotyping on HPs assessment and decision-making.
“Manzer and Bell77, Smith-Oka76 and Shawahna et al’s65 studies identified the adverse impact of stereotyping on HPs assessment and decision-making.”
From Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 47
- Authors
- Smith-Oka, V.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2275-2282
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060218996
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Kellogg Institute for International Studies
- Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts
- College of Arts and Letters
- University of Notre Dame
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
- Keywords
- motherhood, risk, obstetrics, clinical decision-making, blame, social class, female body, midwives, nurses, physicians, social determinants of health, Puebla
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Hospitals, Public, Humans, Mexico, Mother-Child Relations, Mothers, Physician-Patient Relations, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Risk Assessment, Qualitative Research, Delivery, Obstetric, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
