Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38684269›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Maternity healthcare professionals' experiences of supporting women in decision-making for labour and birth: a qualitative study.

Kitty Hardman, Anna Davies, Andrew Demetri, Gemma Clayton, Danya Bakhbakhi, Katherine Birchenall, Sonia Barnfield, Abigail Fraser, Christy Burden, Sheelagh McGuinness and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. How Should We Communicate Information Regarding Birth Choices to Women?: An Online Randomised Survey.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kitty HardmanCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-5615-896X
Anna DaviesCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Andrew DemetriCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gemma ClaytonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Danya BakhbakhiCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1906-5069
Katherine BirchenallCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sonia BarnfieldNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, UK.
Abigail FraserFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christy BurdenCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sheelagh McGuinnessUniversity of Bristol Law School, Bristol, UK.
Rachel MillerIndependent patient representative, Bristol, UK.
Abi MerrielCentre for Academic Women's Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK abi.merriel@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0352-2106
University of Bristol · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBAt Bristol · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore and characterise maternity healthcare professionals' (MHCPs) experience and practice of shared decision-making (SDM), to inform policy, research and practice development.

designQualitative focus group study.

settingLarge Maternity Unit in the Southwest of England.

participantsMHCPs who give information relating to clinical procedures and pregnancy care relating to labour and birth and are directly involved in decision-making conversations were purposively sampled to ensure representation across MHCP groups. DATA COLLECTION: A semistructured topic guide was used. DATA ANALYSIS: Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

resultsSeven focus groups were conducted, comprising a total of 24 participants (3-5 per group). Two themes were developed: contextualising decision-making and controversies in current decision-making. Contextual factors that influenced decision-making practices included lack of time and challenges faced in intrapartum care. MHCPs reported variation in how they approach decision-making conversations and asked for more training on how to consistently achieve SDM. There were communication challenges with women who did not speak English. Three controversies were explored: the role of prior clinical experience, the validity of informed consent when women were in pain and during life-threatening emergencies and instances where women declined medical advice.

conclusionsWe found that MHCPs are committed to SDM but need better support to deliver it. Structured processes including Core Information Sets, communication skills training and decision support aids may help to consistently deliver SDM in maternity care.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedFocus GroupsQualitative ResearchAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationDecision MakingEnglandFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInformed ConsentLabor, ObstetricMaternal Health ServicesParturitionPatient ParticipationClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingOBSTETRICSQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID38684269
PMCPMC11057275
OpenAlexW4396231411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.