ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
A Qualitative analysis of parturients' experience of spinal anesthesia and postoperative complaints.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cesarean deliveries have increased globally, with regional anesthesia being the preferred technique. Despite the advantages of the procedure, parturients experience apprehension regarding pain, mobility, and complications. The postoperative period following cesarean delivery can also be challenging. However, there is limited qualitative research exploring parturients' experiences with regional anesthesia for cesarean delivery and postoperative recovery. Methods: A qualitative study using in-depth interviews was conducted with 12 primiparous parturients who underwent cesarean delivery under regional anesthesia. Interviews explored knowledge, perceptions, and experiences regarding regional anesthesia, cesarean delivery, and postoperative recovery. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Parturients in the study reported experiencing pregnancy-related complications necessitated for opting cesarean delivery instead of vaginal delivery. The study revealed substantial knowledge gaps among parturients regarding cesarean section (CS) and anesthesia. Their decision for CS was driven by prioritizing fetal safety over personal comfort. Parturients did not have many concerns about anesthesia and were focusing mainly on neonatal wellbeing. They had limited recollection of the anesthesia experience but vividly remembered the delivery process and postoperative pain. A strong desire for recovery to provide neonatal care was expressed. Despite challenges, parturients reported overall satisfaction with the CS experience and willingness to recommend it when medically indicated. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for comprehensive education on regional anesthesia, postoperative care, and coping strategies for parturients undergoing cesarean delivery. It emphasizes judicious use of cesarean delivery based on medical necessity while ensuring optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. Further qualitative research with larger samples is recommended.
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.