Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38956635›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2024

Caesarean section on maternal request: a qualitative study of conflicts related to shared decision-making and person-centred care in Sweden.

Mio Fredriksson, Inger K Holmström, Anna T Höglund, Emma Fleron, Magdalena Mattebo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

5 authors.

Mio FredrikssonDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Health Services Research, Uppsala University, Box 564, Uppsala, 751 22, Sweden. mio.fredriksson@pubcare.uu.se.
Inger K HolmströmDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Health Services Research, Uppsala University, Box 564, Uppsala, 751 22, Sweden.
Anna T HöglundDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, Uppsala, 751 22, Sweden.
Emma FleronAkutmottagningen för gynekologi vid Akademiska sjukhuset, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, 751 85, Sweden.
Magdalena MatteboSchool of Health, Care and Social Work, Division of Caring Sciences and Health Care Pedagogics, Mälardalen University, Box 883, Västerås, 721 23, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundToday, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making.

methodsA qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription.

resultsIn the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman's current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman's sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process).

conclusionsThe complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDecision Making, SharedPatient-Centered CarePatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingFemaleHumansPatient ParticipationPregnancySwedenCaesarean section on maternal request (CSMR)ChildbirthObstetric carePatient autonomyPerson-centred careQualitative method

Identifiers

PMID38956635
PMCPMC11221017

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.