ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015
Qualitative website analysis of information on birth after caesarean section.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Kingdom (UK) caesarean section (CS) rate is largely determined by reluctance to augment trial of labour and vaginal birth. Choice between repeat CS and attempting vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in the next pregnancy is challenging, with neither offering clear safety advantages. Women may access online information during the decision-making process. Such information is known to vary in its support for either mode of birth when assessed quantitatively. Therefore, we sought to explore qualitatively, the content and presentation of web-based health care information on birth after caesarean section (CS) in order to identify the dominant messages being conveyed.
methodsThe search engine Google™ was used to conduct an internet search using terms relating to birth after CS. The ten most frequently returned websites meeting relevant purposive sampling criteria were analysed. Sampling criteria were based upon funding source, authorship and intended audience. Images and written textual content together with presence of links to additional media or external web content were analysed using descriptive and thematic analyses respectively.
resultsTen websites were analysed: five funded by Government bodies or professional membership; one via charitable donations, and four funded commercially. All sites compared the advantages and disadvantages of both repeat CS and VBAC. Commercially funded websites favoured a question and answer format alongside images, 'pop-ups', social media forum links and hyperlinks to third-party sites. The relationship between the parent sites and those being linked to may not be readily apparent to users, risking perception of endorsement of either VBAC or repeat CS whether intended or otherwise. Websites affiliated with Government or health services presented referenced clinical information in a factual manner with podcasts of real life experiences. Many imply greater support for VBAC than repeat CS although this was predominantly conveyed through subtle use of words rather than overt messages, with the exception of the latter being apparent in one site.
conclusionsWebsites providing information on birth after CS appear to vary in nature of content according to their funding source. The most user-friendly, balanced and informative websites appear to be those funded by government agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.