Social representation of reproductive biotechnologies among nurses working in sexual and reproductive health.

OBJECTIVES to compare the social representations of reproductive biotechnologies among sexual and reproductive health nurses, and their links with professional practice. METHODS an analytical, comparative, qualitative research, supported by the Theory of Social Representation, carried out in May/2014-February/2015, with 32 nurses from the city of Rio de Janeiro. Semi-structured interview, analyzed by ALCESTE® software. RESULTS nurses not active in assisted human reproduction represent reproductive biotechnologies as unnatural methods of human reproduction, assessing the practice in this field as generalist and bureaucratic. Those who work represent as auxiliary and supporting nature for heterosexual couples, considering the innovative and specialized practice. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS each group presented specific contents and dimensions about reproductive biotechnologies. The representations are centered on moral, normative and ideological personal values, anchored in the traditional conceptions of human and family reproduction, but also collective, acquired in the professional routine, showing group identity and its distinct practices considering reproductive biotechnologies.

[1]  A. B. Queiroz,et al.  Nursing work in assisted human reproduction: between technology and humanization. , 2020, Revista brasileira de enfermagem.

[2]  R. Silva,et al.  Enfermeiros recém-formados e o cuidado intensivo em unidades de pacientes não-críticos , 2019 .

[3]  Z. Sloboda,et al.  Negotiating Access to Assisted Reproduction Technologies in a Post-Socialist Heteronormative Context , 2018 .

[4]  Jaclyn S. Marsh,et al.  Telenursing and Nurse–Patient Communication Within Fertility, Inc. , 2018, Journal of holistic nursing : official journal of the American Holistic Nurses' Association.

[5]  J. Bestard,et al.  Psychosocial needs of women and their partners after successful assisted reproduction treatment in Barcelona☆ , 2016, Reproductive biomedicine & society online.

[6]  L. Souza.  Health, development and innovation: a contribution of the critical theory of technology to the discussion. , 2016, Cadernos de saude publica.

[7]  Ranjan Sharma,et al.  Advances in reproductive biotechnologies , 2016, Veterinary world.

[8]  N. Sallam,et al.  Religious aspects of assisted reproduction , 2016, Facts, views & vision in ObGyn.

[9]  Giseli Campos Gaioski Leal,et al.  Reflections on the nurse’s role in the Rede Cegonha (Stork Network) , 2016 .

[10]  T. D. de Cock,et al.  Client perspectives of midwifery care in the transition from subfertility to parenthood: a qualitative study in the Netherlands , 2015, Journal of psychosomatic obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  P. Serafini,et al.  Human reproduction: current status. , 2015, Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira.

[12]  S. García,et al.  Assisted Conception Services and Regulation within the Brazilian Context. , 2015, JBRA assisted reproduction.

[13]  R. Silva,et al.  Um marco conceitual da clínica do cuidado de enfermagem na terapia intensiva , 2015 .

[14]  P. Patrizio,et al.  Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. , 2015, Human reproduction update.

[15]  Silvio Eder Dias da Silva,et al.  [The social representations theory in Brazilian nursing research]. , 2011, Revista brasileira de enfermagem.

[16]  H. Dimitrios,et al.  Assisted reproduction and midwives: student and certified midwives' educational needs on reproductive biology. , 2010 .

[17]  T. Apostolidis.  Représentations sociales et triangulation : une application en psychologie sociale de la santé. , 2006 .

[18]  B. D. Saúde.,et al.  Diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos , 1997 .

[19]  P. Hershberger,et al.  Evidence-Based Care for Couples With Infertility. , 2016, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.