ArticleMaternal and child health journal2013
Decision-making process for choosing an elective cesarean delivery among primiparas in Taiwan.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Mapping the gendered dynamics of cesarean section: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- What are the influences on women's preferences and decision-making when planning mode of birth in high-income countries? A qualitative systematic review.AJOG global reports · 2025Review
- Breast feeding after caesarean delivery on maternal request: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Development of strategies to reduce cesarean delivery rates in iran 2012-2014: a mixed methods study.International journal of preventive medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A significant proportion of cesarean deliveries in Taiwan were without medical indications and/or on maternal request. The purpose of this study was to understand the decision-making process of choosing an elective cesarean delivery (ELCD) among primiparas in Taiwan. This qualitative exploratory study was guided by grounded theory. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 20 primiparous women, 15 of whom chose ELCD. Verbatim transcriptions were analyzed using constant comparative analysis and methods of open, axial, and selective coding. The core category that describes the process of ELCD decision making among primiparas is "controlling risks of childbirth and ensuring well-being." The decision process can be divided into three phases: (1) Pre-decision: risk perception, including two subcategories, negative pre-existing ideas about normal spontaneous delivery (NSD) caused worry, and desire for ELCD as the solution; (2) In-decision: risk assessment. Women proactively collected information about NSD and cesarean delivery, and then weighed the personal risk between NSD and ELCD. Risk assessment focused on seven dimensions including safety, health, comfort, efficiency, feminine charms, time and economy; (3) Post-decision: marching onward fearlessly, including two subcategories, belief in ELCD and stress relief, and persuading stakeholders to agree and gaining the required resources for ELCD. At different phases of decision-making, women revealed different concerns, though the sequence of phases was not necessarily unidirectional. Health care providers should be aware of the decision phase and intervene at appropriate times. It is difficult to change a women's decision to have ELCD in the post-decision phase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22706999What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.