ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Variation of caesarean section rates in Palestinian governmental hospitals.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- ERAC knowledge, attitudes, and practices among obstetrics and gynecology medical staff.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes among Palestinian adolescent mothers in the West Bank: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, the increased use of cesarean sections has become prevalent in high-income and low and middle-income countries. In Palestine, the rate had risen from 20.3% in 2014 to 25.1% in 2018. We have rates as high as 35.8% in some governmental hospitals and some as low as 15%. This study aimed to understand better why there is a variation in cesarean rates in governmental hospitals that use the same guidelines.
methodsA qualitative and quantitative research approach was used. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 specialists, obstetrics and gynecologists, and midwives in five government hospitals. The hospitals were selected based on the 2017 Annual Health Report reported cesarean section rates. The interview guide was created with the support of specialists and researchers and was piloted. Questions focused mainly on adherence to the obstetric guidelines and barriers to the use, sources of information, training for healthcare providers, the hospital system, and the factors that affect decision-making. Each hospital's delivery records for one month were analyzed to determine the reason for each cesarean section.
resultsThe results indicated that each governmental hospital at the system level had a different policy on cesarean sections. The National Guidelines were found to be interpreted differently among hospitals. One obstetrician-gynecologist decided on a cesarean section at high-rate hospitals, while low-rate hospitals used collective decision-making with empowered midwives. At the professional level, all hospitals urged the importance of a continuous training program to refresh the medical team knowledge, in-house training of new members joining the hospital, and discussion of cases subjective to obstetrician-gynecologists interpretations.
conclusionSeveral institutional factors were identified to strengthen the implementation of the national obstetric guidelines. For example, encouraging collective decision-making between obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives, promoting the use of a second opinion, and mandatory training.
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.