Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30325928›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2018

Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Qian Long, Carol Kingdon, Fan Yang, Michael Dominic Renecle, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Meghan A Bohren, Ana Pilar Betran

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 181 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Global inequities in dietary calcium intake during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Qian LongGlobal Health Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1444-6815
Carol KingdonSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5958-9257
Fan YangJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2853-7769
Michael Dominic RenecleCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Des Moines University, Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America.
Shayesteh JahanfarSchool of Public Health, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, United States of America.
Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4179-4682
Ana Pilar BetranUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Central Michigan University · USDes Moines University Osteopathic Medical Center · USDuke Kunshan University · CNJohns Hopkins University · USThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Lancashire · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina has witnessed a rapid increase of cesarean section (CS) rates in recent years. Several non-clinical factors have been cited as contributing to this trend including maternal request and perceived convenience. We aimed to assess preferences for mode of delivery and reasons for preferences for CS in China to inform the development of future interventions to mitigate unnecessary CSs, which are those performed in the absence of medical indications. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and included longitudinal, cross-sectional, and qualitative studies in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that investigated preferences for mode of delivery among women and family members and health professionals, and the reasons underlying such preferences. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health Library, and one Chinese database (CNKI) using a combination of the key terms 'caesarean section', 'preference', 'choice', 'knowledge', 'attitude', 'culture', 'non-clinical factors', and 'health professionals-patient relations' between 1990 and 2018 without language restriction. Meta-analysis of quantitative studies and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were applied. We included 66 studies in this analysis: 47 quantitative and 19 qualitative. For the index pregnancy, the pooled proportions of preference for CS reported by women in longitudinal studies were 14% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 12%-17%) and 21% in late pregnancy (95% CI 15%-26%). In cross-sectional studies, the proportions were 17% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 14%-20%), 22% in late pregnancy (95% CI 18%-25%), and 30% postpartum (95% CI 19%-40%). Women's preferences for CS were found to rise as pregnancy progressed (preference change across longitudinal studies: mean difference 7%, 95% CI 1%-13%). One longitudinal study reported that the preference for CS among women's partners increased from 8% in late pregnancy to 17% in the immediate postpartum period. In addition, 18 quantitative studies revealed that some pregnant women, ranging from 4% to 34%, did not have a straightforward preference for a mode of delivery, even in late pregnancy. The qualitative meta-synthesis found that women's perceptions of CS as preferable were based on prioritising the baby's and woman's health and appeared to intensify through interactions with the health system. Women valued the convenience of bypassing labour because of fear of pain, antagonistic relations with providers, and beliefs of deteriorating quality of care during labour and vaginal birth, fostering the feeling that CS was the safest option. Health professionals' preference for CS was influenced by financial drivers and malpractice fears. This review has some limitations, including high heterogeneity (despite subgroup and sensitivity analysis) in the quantitative analysis, and the potential for over-reporting of women's preferences for CS in the qualitative synthesis (due to some included studies only including women who requested CS).

conclusionsDespite a minority of women expressing a preference for CS, individual, health system, and socio-cultural factors converge, contributing to a high CS rate in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In order to reduce unnecessary CSs, interventions need to address all these non-clinical factors and concerns. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRY: Prospero CRD42016036596.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCesarean SectionChinaFearFemaleHong KongHumansLabor, ObstetricPainPatient PreferencePregnancyPregnancy TrimestersSpousesTaiwan

Identifiers

PMID30325928
PMCPMC6191094
OpenAlexW4210783241

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.