Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28709410›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Identification of barriers and facilitators for optimal cesarean section care: perspective of professionals.

Sonja Melman, Rachel Hellen Petra Schreurs, Carmen Desiree Dirksen, Anneke Kwee, Jan Gerrit Nijhuis, Nicol Anna Cornelia Smeets, Hubertina Catharina Johanna Scheepers, Rosella Petronella Maria Gemma Hermens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Review
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

8 authors.

Sonja MelmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. s_melman@hotmail.com.
Rachel Hellen Petra SchreursDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Carmen Desiree DirksenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), CAPHRI- School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anneke KweeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Hospital Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan Gerrit NijhuisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicol Anna Cornelia SmeetsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Hubertina Catharina Johanna ScheepersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rosella Petronella Maria Gemma HermensScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe cesarean section (CS) rate has increased over recent decades with poor guideline adherence as a possible cause. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators for delivering optimal care as described in clinical practice guidelines.

methodsKey recommendations from evidence-based guidelines were used as a base to explore barriers and facilitators for delivering optimal CS care in The Netherlands. Both focus group and telephone interviews among 29 different obstetrical professionals were performed. Transcripts from the interviews were analysed. Barriers and facilitators were identified and categorised in six domains according to the framework developed by Grol: the guideline recommendations (I), the professional (II), the patient (III), the social context (IV), the organizational context (V) and the financial/legislation context (VI).

resultsMost barriers were found in the professional and organizational domain. Barriers mentioned by healthcare professionals were disagreement with specific guideline recommendations, and hesitation to allow women to be part of the decision making process. Other barriers are lack of adequately trained personal staff, lack of collaboration between professionals, and lack of technical equipment.

conclusionsClear facilitators and barriers for guideline adherence were identified in all domains. Several barriers may be addressed by using decision aids on mode of birth or prediction models to individualise care in women in whom both planned vaginal birth and CS are equal options. In women with an intended vaginal birth, adequate staffing and the availability of both fetal blood sampling and epidural analgesia are important.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGuideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicAdultCesarean SectionDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleNetherlandsObstetricsPregnancyQualitative ResearchBarriersCesarean sectionFacilitatorsGuidelinesProfessionals

Identifiers

PMID28709410
PMCPMC5513406

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.