ArticlePloS one2022
What would reduce caesarean section rates?-Views from pregnant women and clinicians in Ireland.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The significance of different intervertebral spaces in combined spinal epidural anesthesia in cesarean section.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Trial
- Factors influencing obstetricians' intentions to facilitate normal physiological birth: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Temporal-spatial trends in childbirth in Ontario, Canada.PloS one · 2026Article
- Addressing the Increasing Rate of Caesarean Sections in an Australian Healthcare System: A Systems Science Approach to Identify Stakeholder Perspectives.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring the influence of medical staffing and birth volume on observed-to-expected cesarean deliveries: a panel data analysis of integrated obstetric and gynecological departments in Germany.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Evidence-Based Strategies to Minimize Unnecessary Primary Cesarean Sections: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Global increased cesarean section rates and public health implications: A call to action.Health science reports · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section rates continue to rise in most parts of the world. While CS is a lifesaving procedure there is evidence that, beyond a certain threshold, CS rates may contribute to increased maternal and perinatal morbidity. This study aimed to elicit the views of pregnant women's and clinicians' on how CS rates might be reduced.
methodsPregnant women and their partners, and clinicians working with pregnant women in a maternity hospital in the Republic of Ireland of Ireland, were invited to participate in focus groups. Eligibility criteria included all women attending antenatal classes and clinicians working with pregnant women. A convenience sample was used and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsFour focus group interviews were conducted with 30 clinicians and 15 pregnant women and two partners participated in three focus groups. A further two women were interviewed individually. Participants expressed a view that rising CS rates were impacted by a societal perception that CS had become a 'normal mode of birth'. Suggestions for reducing CS rates were offered by clinicians and pregnant women and their partners.
conclusionsClinicians and pregnant women consider that CS rates can be reduced if a shared philosophy supporting normal birth is prioritised alongside adequate resourcing. Women and their partners also believe that enhanced communication with clinicians is central to reducing CS rates.
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.