Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29343215›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Women's decision-making processes and the influences on their mode of birth following a previous caesarean section in Taiwan: a qualitative study.

Shu-Wen Chen, Alison M Hutchinson, Cate Nagle, Tracey K Bucknall

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shu-Wen ChenDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, Australia. chensw1119@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0044-5750
Alison M HutchinsonDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, Australia.
Cate NagleJames Cook University & Townsville Hospital and Health Service, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Townsville, Australia.
Tracey K BucknallDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, Australia.
Deakin University · AUTownsville Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is an alternative option for women who have had a previous caesarean section (CS); however, uptake is limited because of concern about the risks of uterine rupture. The aim of this study was to explore women's decision-making processes and the influences on their mode of birth following a previous CS.

methodsA qualitative approach was used. The research comprised three stages. Stage I consisted of naturalistic observation at 33-34 weeks' gestation. Stage II involved interviews with pregnant women at 35-37 weeks' gestation. Stage III consisted of interviews with the same women who were interviewed postnatally, 1 month after birth. The research was conducted in a private medical centre in northern Taiwan. Using a purposive sampling, 21 women and 9 obstetricians were recruited. Data collection involved in-depth interviews, observation and field notes. Constant comparative analysis was employed for data analysis.

resultsEnsuring the safety of mother and baby was the focus of women's decisions. Women's decisions-making influences included previous birth experience, concern about the risks of vaginal birth, evaluation of mode of birth, current pregnancy situation, information resources and health insurance. In communicating with obstetricians, some women complied with obstetricians' recommendations for repeat caesarean section (RCS) without being informed of alternatives. Others used four step decision-making processes that included searching for information, listening to obstetricians' professional judgement, evaluating alternatives, and making a decision regarding mode of birth. After birth, women reflected on their decisions in three aspects: reflection on birth choices; reflection on factors influencing decisions; and reflection on outcomes of decisions.

conclusionsThe health and wellbeing of mother and baby were the major concerns for women. In response to the decision-making influences, women's interactions with obstetricians regarding birth choices varied from passive decision-making to shared decision-making. All women have the right to be informed of alternative birthing options. Routine provision of explanations by obstetricians regarding risks associated with alternative birth options, in addition to financial coverage for RCS from National Health Insurance, would assist women's decision-making. Establishment of a website to provide women with reliable information about birthing options may also assist women's decision-making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAttitude of Health PersonnelCesarean Section, RepeatChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansObstetricsParturitionPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnant PeopleQualitative ResearchTaiwanVaginal Birth after CesareanDecision-makingMode of birthQualitative researchRepeat caesarean section (RCS)Risk evaluationVaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC)

Identifiers

PMID29343215
PMCPMC5773050
OpenAlexW2785167140

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.