Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962691›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Caesarean section or vaginal delivery for low-risk pregnancy? Helping women make an informed choice in low- and middle-income countries.

Alexandre Dumont, Myriam de Loenzien, Hung Mac Quo Nhu, Marylène Dugas, Charles Kabore, Pisake Lumbiganon, Maria Regina Torloni, Celina Gialdini, Guillermo Carroli, Claudia Hanson and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The intention for cesarean section scale: Turkish validity and reliability study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 10 countries.

Alexandre DumontResearch Institute for Sustainable Development, Paris University, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-0193
Myriam de LoenzienResearch Institute for Sustainable Development, Paris University, Paris, France.
Hung Mac Quo NhuPham Ngoc Thach University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Marylène DugasInterdisciplinary Chair in Health and Social Services for Rural Populations, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, QC, Canada.
Charles KaboreResearch Institute of Health Sciences, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Pisake LumbiganonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Maria Regina TorloniEvidence Based Healthcare Post-Graduate Program, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Celina GialdiniCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Guillermo CarroliCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Claudia HansonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.
QUALI-DEC consortium
Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales · ARInstitut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales · FRInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé · BFKarolinska Institutet · SEKhon Kaen University · THPham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine · VNUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversité du Québec à Rimouski · CAWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women's fear and uncertainty about vaginal delivery and lack of empowerment in decision-making generate decision conflict and is one of the main determinants of high caesarean section rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to develop a decision analysis tool (DAT) to help pregnant women make an informed choice about the planned mode of delivery and to evaluate its acceptability in Vietnam, Thailand, Argentina, and Burkina Faso. The DAT targets low-risk pregnant women with a healthy, singleton foetus, without any medical or obstetric disorder, no previous caesarean scarring, and eligibility for labour trials. We conducted a systematic review to determine the short- and long-term maternal and offspring risks and benefits of planned caesarean section compared to planned vaginal delivery. We carried out individual interviews and focus group discussions with key informants to capture informational needs for decision-making, and to assess the acceptability of the DAT in participating hospitals. The DAT meets 20 of the 22 Patient Decision Aid Standards for decision support. It includes low- to moderate-certainty evidence-based information on the risks and benefits of both modes of birth, and helps pregnant women clarify their personal values. It has been well accepted by women and health care providers. Adaptations have been made in each country to fit the context and to facilitate its implementation in current practice, including the development of an App. DAT is a simple method to improve communication and facilitate shared decision-making for planned modes of birth. It is expected to build trust and foster more effective, satisfactory dialogue between pregnant women and providers. It can be easily adapted and updated as new evidence emerges. We encourage further studies in LMICs to assess the impact of DAT on quality decision-making for the appropriate use of caesarean section in these settings.

Identifiers

PMID36962691
PMCPMC10022020
OpenAlexW4308993584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read9
identifiers read8
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.