ArticleHeliyon2024
Obstetricians and midwives perspective of the alarming high cesarean section rates in Greece and worldwide.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of prevalence, perceptions, and factors associated with reported history of caesarean section among women in the United Arab Emirates: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Comfort or necessity: obstetricians' perspectives on the drivers, consequences, and recommendations for reducing caesarean section rates in Turkey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Design, development, and evaluation of a web-based consultation system for birth after cesarean: a mixed-method study protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to outline the perspectives of obstetricians/gynecologists (physicians) and midwives regarding the alarmingly high rates of cesarean sections (CSs) to identify areas for improvement and describe the role of a regional obstetric quality initiative. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study was performed utilizing real-world data from questionaries provided to Greek midwives and obstetricians. Primary outcomes included the attitudes of Greek physicians and midwives toward the CS rates in Greece and around the world, as well as identifying potential solutions for lowering these rates. The secondary outcome was the potential correlation between the answers of the participants and their demographic parameters. Results: A total of 456 physicians and 234 midwives participated in the survey. Greek CS rates (>50 %) were considered "acceptable" and inevitable by 29.7 % and 32 % of the participants, respectively. Stratified analysis based on profession showed that significantly fewer midwives compared to obstetricians would agree with current CS rates. Participants who had obtained their degrees abroad were more likely to consider all CS rates more justified than physicians and midwives who had graduated from Greek medical schools. For all questions, the younger age subgroups responded in a way toward the non-acceptability of CS rates and favored the implementation of rules and practice control according to guidelines. The responses did not differ significantly between male and female physicians. Conclusions: Greek midwives, to a greater degree than obstetricians/gynecologists, consider the current CS rates unjustified and agree on the importance of implementing appropriate interventions to reduce them.
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.