Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487226›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2020

Women's, partners' and healthcare providers' views and experiences of assisted vaginal birth: a systematic mixed methods review.

Nicola Crossland, Carol Kingdon, Marie-Clare Balaam, Ana Pilar Betrán, Soo Downe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Mothers' Perceptions About Childbirth Preparation Classes: A Qualitative Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Nicola CrosslandFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. ncrossland@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1063-8123
Carol KingdonResearch in Childbirth and Health Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Marie-Clare BalaamResearch in Childbirth and Health Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/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.
Soo DowneResearch in Childbirth and Health Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.

Funding

UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen certain complications arise during the second stage of labour, assisted vaginal delivery (AVD), a vaginal birth with forceps or vacuum extractor, can effectively improve outcomes by ending prolonged labour or by ensuring rapid birth in response to maternal or fetal compromise. In recent decades, the use of AVD has decreased in many settings in favour of caesarean section (CS). This review aimed to improve understanding of experiences, barriers and facilitators for AVD use.

methodsSystematic searches of eight databases using predefined search terms to identify studies reporting views and experiences of maternity service users, their partners, health care providers, policymakers, and funders in relation to AVD. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach. Confidence in review findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Findings from quantitative studies were synthesised narratively and assessed using an adaptation of CERQual. Qualitative and quantitative review findings were triangulated using a convergence coding matrix.

resultsForty-two studies (published 1985-2019) were included: six qualitative, one mixed-method and 35 quantitative. Thirty-five were from high-income countries, and seven from LMIC settings. Confidence in the findings was moderate or low. Spontaneous vaginal birth was most likely to be associated with positive short and long-term outcomes, and emergency CS least likely. Views and experiences of AVD tended to fall somewhere between these two extremes. Where indicated, AVD can be an effective, acceptable alternative to caesarean section. There was agreement or partial agreement across qualitative studies and surveys that the experience of AVD is impacted by the unexpected nature of events and, particularly in high-income settings, unmet expectations. Positive relationships, good communication, involvement in decision-making, and (believing in) the reason for intervention were important mediators of birth experience. Professional attitudes and skills (development) were simultaneously barriers and facilitators of AVD in quantitative studies.

conclusionsInformation, positive interaction and communication with providers and respectful care are facilitators for acceptance of AVD. Barriers include lack of training and skills for decision-making and use of instruments.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricHealth PersonnelParturitionAttitudeCesarean SectionDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansPregnancyAssisted vaginal deliveryCaesarean sectionChildbirthEvidence synthesisForceps deliveryInstrumental deliveryOperative deliveryVacuum extractionVentouse

Identifiers

PMID32487226
PMCPMC7268509

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.