ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2023
Clinicians' views regarding caesarean section rates in Switzerland: A cross-sectional web-based survey.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The caesarean section (CS) rate in Switzerland is currently 32 %, well above the WHO recommended rate of 15 %. The study aims were three-fold: to explore the perception of this high rate among Swiss obstetrics-gynecology (Ob-Gyn) professionals; to assess the factors associated with a perception of a too high national CS rate; and to describe professionals' opinions on measures to reduce this rate. Study design: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 1 May and 30 June 2021 using an online questionnaire sent to Ob/Gyn physicians and midwives at a university hospital and members of the Swiss Conference of Heads of Ob/Gyn Divisions. Survey participation was voluntary. The main outcome was the belief that CS was high. Associations were explored between different factors and the main outcome with logistic regression. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Multivariate logistic regression included adjustments for age, gender, place of work and profession. Results: Of 226 health professionals invited, 188 completed the questionnaire (83.2 % participation rate). Among respondents, 50.3 % (n = 94) were Ob/Gyn physicians and 49.7 % were midwives (n = 93); 77.1 % were women (n = 145). Most participants (74.7 % [n = 139]) considered the Swiss CS rate as too high and that it should be reduced (79 % [n = 147]) but, notably, they considered their own CS rate as correct (71.9 % [n = 123]). Improving patient education (57.5 % [n = 108]) and professional training (54.8 % [n = 103]) were considered as strategies to reduce this rate. In multivariate analysis, only length of professional experience was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of considering the CS rate as too high (OR 3.07, 95 % CI 1.01-9.30; p = 0.047). When specialty was added in the model, the length of professional experience disappeared and the perception of having a too high CS rate was associated with being a midwife and obstetrician rather than a gynecologist (OR 3.62, 95 % CI 1.72-7.63; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Clinicians, particularly obstetricians, believed that the current rate of CS in Switzerland was too high and that actions were needed to reduce this rate. Improving patient education and professional training were considered as the main strategies to be explored.
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.