Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041661›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2018

Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Carol Kingdon, Soo Downe, Ana Pilar Betran

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07759622 (The Cesarean Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07759622 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Cesarean Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorLund UniversityRan2026 to 2035Enrolled260ConditionsCesarean BirthArmsCesarean Bundle
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Responses to increased rates of caesarean births.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  10. Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Carol KingdonSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. ckingdon@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5958-9257
Soo DowneSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Ana Pilar BetranDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is continued debate about the role of women and communities in influencing rising rates of caesarean section (CS). In settings where CS rates exceed recommended levels, mothers and babies are exposed to potential harms that may outweigh the potential benefits. There is therefore a need to understand how educational interventions targeted at women and communities to reduce unnecessary CS are perceived and used. This qualitative evidence synthesis aimed to explore what women and communities say about the barriers and facilitators to intervention effectiveness for these important groups.

methodSeven electronic databases were searched using predefined search terms. Studies reporting qualitative data pertaining to interventions, published between 1985 and March 2017, with no language restriction were sought. Study quality was independently assessed by two authors before qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using an interpretive, meta-ethnography approach. Resulting Statements of Findings were assessed using GRADE-CERQual, and summarised thematically.

resultsTwelve studies were included. They were published between 2001 and 2016. Eleven were from high-income countries. Twelve Summaries of Findings encompassed the data, and were graded (moderate or high) on CerQual. The Statements of Findings are reported under three final themes: 1) Mutability of women's and communities' beliefs about birth; 2) Multiplicity of individual information needs about birth; 3) Interactions with health professionals and influence of healthcare system on actual birth method. Women and communities value educational interventions that include opportunities for dialogue, are individualised (including acknowledgement of previous birth experiences), and are consistent with available clinical care and the advice of the health professional they come into contact with.

conclusionWomen's values and preferences for birth, and for information format and content, vary across populations, and evolves in individual women over time. Interactions with health professionals and health system factors can partly be responsible for changes in views. Educational interventions should take into account these dynamic interactions, as well as the women's need for emotional support and dialogue with professionals alongside information about birth. Further research is required to test these findings and the utility of their practical application, particularly in medium and low income settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017059453 .

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePregnant PeoplePrenatal CareCesarean SectionFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleParturitionPregnancyQualitative ResearchBirth methodCaesarean sectionDecision-aidsEducational interventionsWomen’s views

Identifiers

PMID30041661
PMCPMC6057083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.