Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27832743›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

Clinicians' views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates.

Ingela Lundgren, Patricia Healy, Margaret Carroll, Cecily Begley, Andrea Matterne, Mechthild M Gross, Susanne Grylka-Baeschlin, Jane Nicoletti, Sandra Morano, Christina Nilsson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ingela LundgrenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. ingela.lundgren@gu.se.
Patricia HealySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Upper Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland.
Margaret CarrollSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Cecily BegleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Andrea MatterneMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Mechthild M GrossMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Susanne Grylka-BaeschlinMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Jane NicolettiUniversita Degli Studi di Genova, Via Balbi 5, 16126, Genova, Italy.
Sandra MoranoIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Martino IST, Largo R. Benzi, 10 16132, Genova, Italy.
Christina NilssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Joan LalorSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section (CS) rates are increasing worldwide and the most common reason is repeat CS following previous CS. For most women a vaginal birth after a previous CS (VBAC) is a safe option. However, the rate of VBAC differs in an international perspective. Obtaining deeper knowledge of clinicians' views on VBAC can help in understanding the factors of importance for increasing VBAC rates. Focus group interviews with clinicians and women in three countries with high VBAC rates (Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands) and three countries with low VBAC rates (Ireland, Italy and Germany) are part of "OptiBIRTH", an ongoing research project. The study reported here aims to explore the views of clinicians from countries with low VBAC rates on factors of importance for improving VBAC rates.

methodsFocus group interviews were held in Ireland, Italy and Germany. In total 71 clinicians participated in nine focus group interviews. Five central questions about VBAC were used and interviews were analysed using content analysis. The analysis was performed in each country in the native language and then translated into English. All data were then analysed together and final categories were validated in each country.

resultsThe findings are presented in four main categories with several sub-categories: 1) "prameters for VBAC", including the importance of the obstetric history, present obstetric factors, a positive attitude among those who are centrally involved, early follow-up after CS and antenatal classes; 2) "organisational support and resources for women undergoing a VBAC", meaning a successful VBAC requires clinical expertise and resources during labour; 3) "fear as a key inhibitor of successful VBAC", including understanding women's fear of childbirth, clinicians' fear of VBAC and the ways that clinicians' fear can be transferred to women; and 4) "shared decision making - rapport, knowledge and confidence", meaning ensuring consistent, realistic and unbiased information and developing trust within the clinician-woman relationship.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that increasing the VBAC rate depends on organisational factors, the care offered during pregnancy and childbirth, the decision-making process and the strategies employed to reduce fear in all involved.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCesarean Section, RepeatDecision MakingFemaleFinlandFocus GroupsGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansIrelandItalyNetherlandsParturitionPregnancySwedenCliniciansContent analysisCSFocus groupsMidwiferyQualitative studyVBAC

Identifiers

PMID27832743
PMCPMC5103375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.