What would reduce caesarean section rates?-Views from pregnant women and clinicians in Ireland.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
17
06
2021
accepted:
10
04
2022
entrez:
28
4
2022
pubmed:
29
4
2022
medline:
3
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Caesarean section rates continue to rise in most parts of the world. While CS is a lifesaving procedure there is evidence that, beyond a certain threshold, CS rates may contribute to increased maternal and perinatal morbidity. This study aimed to elicit the views of pregnant women's and clinicians' on how CS rates might be reduced. Pregnant women and their partners, and clinicians working with pregnant women in a maternity hospital in the Republic of Ireland of Ireland, were invited to participate in focus groups. Eligibility criteria included all women attending antenatal classes and clinicians working with pregnant women. A convenience sample was used and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. Four focus group interviews were conducted with 30 clinicians and 15 pregnant women and two partners participated in three focus groups. A further two women were interviewed individually. Participants expressed a view that rising CS rates were impacted by a societal perception that CS had become a 'normal mode of birth'. Suggestions for reducing CS rates were offered by clinicians and pregnant women and their partners. Clinicians and pregnant women consider that CS rates can be reduced if a shared philosophy supporting normal birth is prioritised alongside adequate resourcing. Women and their partners also believe that enhanced communication with clinicians is central to reducing CS rates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Caesarean section rates continue to rise in most parts of the world. While CS is a lifesaving procedure there is evidence that, beyond a certain threshold, CS rates may contribute to increased maternal and perinatal morbidity. This study aimed to elicit the views of pregnant women's and clinicians' on how CS rates might be reduced.
METHODS
Pregnant women and their partners, and clinicians working with pregnant women in a maternity hospital in the Republic of Ireland of Ireland, were invited to participate in focus groups. Eligibility criteria included all women attending antenatal classes and clinicians working with pregnant women. A convenience sample was used and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Four focus group interviews were conducted with 30 clinicians and 15 pregnant women and two partners participated in three focus groups. A further two women were interviewed individually. Participants expressed a view that rising CS rates were impacted by a societal perception that CS had become a 'normal mode of birth'. Suggestions for reducing CS rates were offered by clinicians and pregnant women and their partners.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians and pregnant women consider that CS rates can be reduced if a shared philosophy supporting normal birth is prioritised alongside adequate resourcing. Women and their partners also believe that enhanced communication with clinicians is central to reducing CS rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35482745
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267465
pii: PONE-D-21-19917
pmc: PMC9049329
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0267465Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 24;14(10):e0224313
pubmed: 31648289
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Nov;5(Suppl 2):
pubmed: 33234502
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1286-1287
pubmed: 30322563
BJOG. 2018 Jul;125(8):932-942
pubmed: 29117644
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1349-1357
pubmed: 30322585
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 06;7:CD003766
pubmed: 28681500
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1113-1120
pubmed: 31338953
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 27;13(7):e0200941
pubmed: 30052666
Eur J Public Health. 2016 Oct;26(5):753-760
pubmed: 27267615
Midwifery. 2015 Feb;31(2):332-40
pubmed: 25467600
Midwifery. 2016 Jan;32:21-9
pubmed: 26597110
Health Policy. 2017 Sep;121(9):986-993
pubmed: 28774730
Womens Health Issues. 2021 Jan-Feb;31(1):75-81
pubmed: 33069559
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Sep 17;18(1):377
pubmed: 30223780
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 28;9:CD005528
pubmed: 30264405
BMJ. 2011 Jan 25;342:d276
pubmed: 21266421
Reprod Health. 2015 Jun 21;12:57
pubmed: 26093498
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Sep 25;17(1):322
pubmed: 28946844
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Dec;99(12):1700-1709
pubmed: 32609877
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 15;7:CD004945
pubmed: 32666584
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Dec 1;20(1):746
pubmed: 33261564
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Oct;36(7):916-920
pubmed: 27612522
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 8;8(2):e017333
pubmed: 29439002
BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):548-55
pubmed: 24467797
Minerva Ginecol. 2018 Dec;70(6):676-686
pubmed: 30264952