Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30514394›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Respectful and disrespectful care in the Czech Republic: an online survey.

Cecily Begley, Natalie Sedlicka, Deirdre Daly

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Obstetric Violence in Spain (Part II): Interventionism and Medicalization during Birth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Obstetric Violence in Spain (Part I): Women's Perception and Interterritorial Differences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Cecily BegleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin, DO2 T283, Ireland.
Natalie SedlickaAssociation for Birth Houses & Centers (APODAC), Masarykovo nábřeží 234/26, 11000, Prague 1, Czech Republic.
Deirdre DalySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin, DO2 T283, Ireland. dalyd8@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3045-9894
Trinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespectful maternity care includes treating women with dignity, consulting them about preferences, gaining consent for treatment, respecting their wishes, and giving care based on evidence, not routines. In the absence of any documented evidence, this study aimed to ascertain maternity care-givers' perceptions of respectful care provided for childbearing women in Czech Republic.

methodsFollowing ethical approval, an online quantitative survey with qualitative comments was completed by 52 respondents recruited from workshops on promoting normal birth, followed by snowball sampling. The majority were midwives (50%) or doulas (46%) working in one of 51 hospitals, or with homebirths. Chi-square analysis was used for comparisons.

resultsNon-evidenced-based interventions, described as 'always' or 'frequently' used in hospitals, included application of electronic fetal monitoring in normal labour (n = 40, 91%), shaving the perineum (n = 10, 29%), and closed-glottal pushing (n = 32, 94%). Positions stated as most often used for spontaneous vaginal births were semi-recumbent (n = 31, 65%) or lying flat (n = 15, 31%) in hospital, and upright at home (n = 27, 100%). Average episiotomy and induction of labour rates were estimated at 40 and 26%, respectively, higher than accepted norms. Eighteen respondents (46%) said reasons for performing vaginal examinations were not explained to women in hospitals, and 21 (51%) said consent was 'never' sought. At home, 25 (89%) said reasons were explained, and permission 'always' sought (n = 22, 81%). Thirteen (32%) said hospital clinicians explained why artificial rupture of membranes was necessary, but only ten (25%) said they 'always' sought permission. The majority said that hospital clinicians 'never'/'almost never' explained reasons for performing an episiotomy (13 = 34%), gained permission (n = 20, 54%) or gave local anaesthetic (n = 19, 51%). Contrastingly, 17 (100%) said midwives at home explained the reasons for episiotomy and asked permission. When clinicians disagreed with women's decisions, 13 (35%) respondents said women might be told to 'face the consequences', six (16%) stated that the 'psychological pressure' experienced caused women to 'give up and give their permission', and four (11%) said the intervention would be performed 'against her will.'

conclusionsFindings reveal considerable levels of disrespectful, non-evidenced-based, non-consensual and abusive practices that may leave women with life-long trauma.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelRespectAdultCzech RepublicDelivery, ObstetricEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyPregnancyQuality of Health CareAbuseConsentDisrespectful careInterventionLabourMaternity careObstetric violenceRespectful care

Identifiers

PMID30514394
PMCPMC6280471
OpenAlexW2902121246

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.