Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28703623›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2017

Opinions and attitudes of obstetricians and midwives in Turkey towards caesarean section and vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section.

Sezer Kisa, Adnan Kisa, Mustafa Z Younis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sezer Kisa1 Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway.
Adnan Kisa2 Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway.
Mustafa Z Younis3 Department of Health Policy & Management, Global Health, Economics & Finance Concentrations, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS, USA.
University of Oslo · NOJackson State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim To determine the opinions and attitudes of Turkish obstetricians and midwives to caesarean section (C-section) and vaginal birth following a C-section. Methods The study involved obstetricians and midwives who were working in a state women's hospital and two private hospitals in Gaziantep, Turkey. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires on sociodemographic data and provide opinions about C-section. Results A total of 88 midwives and 22 obstetricians participated in the study. Approximately one-third of midwives believed caesarean rates were high at their institution and more than 50% thought that the rate should be reduced. In contrast, although approximately 80% of obstetricians thought that caesarean rates in their institutions ranged between 25-50%, only 18% believed the rate was high and 68% believed that the rate of should be reduced. Midwives and obstetricians tended to agree on most suggested reasons for high C-section rates. When asked about interventions that may reduce the C-section rates, midwives and obstetricians had opposing views. However, most participants agreed that prenatal childbirth preparation courses would be beneficial. Conclusions This study showed that most midwives and obstetricians believe the rate of C-section at their institution is high and should be reduced.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricMidwiferyPhysiciansVaginal Birth after CesareanAdultDemographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyYoung Adultcaesarean sectionC-sectionMidwivesobstetricianvaginal birth

Identifiers

PMID28703623
PMCPMC5805182
OpenAlexW2572680942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.