ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
The acceptability to women of techniques for managing an impacted fetal head at caesarean section and of randomised trials evaluating those techniques: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Feasibility of a RCT of techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: the MIDAS scoping study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled it
- The acceptability and feasibility of a randomised trial exploring approaches to managing impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to explore women's views on the acceptability of different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head at caesarean; and the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial in this area.
methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews with a systematic sample of women who experienced second stage emergency caesarean section at a tertiary National Health Service (NHS) hospital in England, UK. Thematic analysis was used to extract women's views.
resultsWomen varied in their perceptions of the acceptability of different techniques for managing impacted fetal head. Trust in medical expertise and prioritising the safety of the baby were important contextual factors. Greater consensus was found around informed choice in trials where subthemes considered the timing of invitation, reduced capacity to give consent in emergency situations, and the importance of birth outcomes and having good rapport with healthcare professionals who invite women into trials. Finally, women reflected on the importance of supportive antenatal and postpartum education for impacted fetal head.
conclusionsThis research provides information on the acceptability of techniques and any trial to evaluate these techniques. Findings illustrate the importance of context and quality of care to both acceptability and approaching women to take part in a future trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.