Miri Yahalom
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Miri Yahalom has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Eran Ben-Arye
Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
1 shared publication - Maayan Lahav Sher
Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3525433, Israel
1 shared publication - Nika Zur
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel
1 shared publication - Nili Stein
Department of Community Medicine and Epidemiology, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel
1 shared publication - Noah Samuels
Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9103102, Israel
1 shared publication - Ofer Lavie
Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3525433, Israel
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 13 October 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (20) , 3421
Exploring Perspectives of Parturient Women and the Obstetric Team: Towards an Integrative Obstetric Care Model
Objectives: Integrative medicine programs are increasingly being implemented in clinical settings, including gynecology and obstetrics. This study explores an integrative obstetric and maternity care (IObM) model designed for real-life peri-labor settings, comparing perspectives among parturient women to obstetric healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding operative components of the model. Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was prospectively administered to women hospitalized from the 22nd week of gestation (antenatal, early labor, or immediate postpartum) and to obstetric HCPs, primarily obstetricians and nurse-midwives, in three obstetric wards. Four core items addressed key aspects of the IObM model: the source of and indications for referral to IObM treatments, preferred IObM modalities, and willingness to receive care from uncertified IObM providers. Results: The two respondent groups (63 parturient women and 60 HCPs; response rate 95 and 100%, respectively) showed similar patterns regarding language, religiosity, spiritual relatedness, prior complementary medicine use (>66%), and perceived effectiveness and risks during pregnancy and labor. Internal consistency within each of the four core items was moderate and acceptable (parturients, α = 0.61–0.69; HCPs, α = 0.62–0.68). HCPs showed greater support than parturients for nurse-midwife referrals (p = 0.002) and mind-body trained therapies (p = 0.002). Both groups recommended labor-related indications for IObM referral, primarily labor pain, anxiety, and labor progression. Parturients were more supportive of nurse-provided IObM care (p = 0.012). Conclusions: Exploring expectations of parturient women and HCPs is essential when designing IObM models of care. Four core aspects should be prioritized: source of and indication for the referral to IObM treatments and mapping of preferred IObM modalities and providers. These findings reflect acceptability, expectations, and preferences in a single center with an established integrative service and should not be read as evidence of clinical effectiveness or of successful implementation. Further prospective research should explore implementation of these models in real-life practice, assessing effectiveness, risks, and birth experience.
- 13 October 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (20) , 3421
Open AccessExploring Perspectives of Parturient Women and the Obstetric Team: Towards an Integrative Obstetric Care Model
Objectives: Integrative medicine programs are increasingly being implemented in clinical settings, including gynecology and obstetrics. This study explores an integrative obstetric and maternity care (IObM) model designed for real-life peri-labor settings, comparing perspectives among parturient women to obstetric healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding operative components of the model. Methods: A 26-item questionnaire was prospectively administered to women hospitalized from the 22nd week of gestation (antenatal, early labor, or immediate postpartum) and to obstetric HCPs, primarily obstetricians and nurse-midwives, in three obstetric wards. Four core items addressed key aspects of the IObM model: the source of and indications for referral to IObM treatments, preferred IObM modalities, and willingness to receive care from uncertified IObM providers. Results: The two respondent groups (63 parturient women and 60 HCPs; response rate 95 and 100%, respectively) showed similar patterns regarding language, religiosity, spiritual relatedness, prior complementary medicine use (>66%), and perceived effectiveness and risks during pregnancy and labor. Internal consistency within each of the four core items was moderate and acceptable (parturients, α = 0.61–0.69; HCPs, α = 0.62–0.68). HCPs showed greater support than parturients for nurse-midwife referrals (p = 0.002) and mind-body trained therapies (p = 0.002). Both groups recommended labor-related indications for IObM referral, primarily labor pain, anxiety, and labor progression. Parturients were more supportive of nurse-provided IObM care (p = 0.012). Conclusions: Exploring expectations of parturient women and HCPs is essential when designing IObM models of care. Four core aspects should be prioritized: source of and indication for the referral to IObM treatments and mapping of preferred IObM modalities and providers. These findings reflect acceptability, expectations, and preferences in a single center with an established integrative service and should not be read as evidence of clinical effectiveness or of successful implementation. Further prospective research should explore implementation of these models in real-life practice, assessing effectiveness, risks, and birth experience.