Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286892›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Maternity service organisational interventions that aim to reduce caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Anna Chapman, Cate Nagle, Debra Bick, Rebecca Lindberg, Bridie Kent, Justin Calache, Alison M Hutchinson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Anna ChapmanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Cate NagleCentre for Nursing and Midwifery Research, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Debra BickWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Rebecca LindbergInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Bridie KentFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Justin CalacheSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Alison M HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. alison.hutchinson@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-2726

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity, yet rates continue to increase within most countries. Effective interventions are required to reduce the number of non-medically indicated CSs and improve outcomes for women and infants. This paper reports findings of a systematic review of literature related to maternity service organisational interventions that have a primary intention of improving CS rates.

methodA three-phase search strategy was implemented to identify studies utilising organisational interventions to improve CS rates in maternity services. The database search (including Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2017. Reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies were also searched. Primary outcomes were overall, planned, and unplanned CS rates. Secondary outcomes included a suite of birth outcomes. A series of meta-analyses were performed in RevMan, separated by type of organisational intervention and outcome of interest. Summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented as the effect measure. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model.

resultsFifteen articles were included in the systematic review, nine of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Results indicated that, compared with women allocated to usual care, women allocated to midwife-led models of care implemented across pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postnatal period were, on average, less likely to experience CS (overall) (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96), planned CS (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), and episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). Narratively, audit and feedback, and a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, were identified as interventions that have potential to reduce CS rates.

conclusionMaternity service leaders should consider the adoption of midwife-led models of care across the maternity episode within their organisations, particularly for women classified as low-risk. Additional studies are required that utilise either audit and feedback, or a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, to facilitate the quantification of intervention effects within future reviews. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016039458 ; prospectively registered.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMidwiferyModels, StatisticalPerinatal CarePregnancyQuality ImprovementCaesarean sectionChildbirthMaternity serviceMeta-analysisMidwife-led careOrganisational interventionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31286892
PMCPMC6615143

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.