ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2025
The decision-making process in the choice of VBAC: Facilitators and barriers from women's perception, a systematic review.
Review in European journal of midwifery, 2025. 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.
- "I did it": a phenomenological study of women's experiences of midwife-supported vaginal birth after cesarean sections in South Korea.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Nine years' experience of trial of labor after two previous cesarean sections at a tertiary hospital - A retrospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- "Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".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
introductionVaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is associated with a lower risk of maternal morbidity, fewer complications in future pregnancies, and a reduced overall cesarean section (C-section) rate at the population level. Despite these benefits, a woman's decision for VBAC is shaped by multiple factors. This review aims to identify elements perceived by women as influential in the VBAC decision-making process.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review between 1 June and 12 July 2024, using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO. We included English-language studies (2014-2024) on women eligible for VBAC with ≥1 previous C-sections. Study quality was appraised using CASP. Findings were narratively and thematically synthesized.
resultsTwenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen recurring factors were identified. 'Facilitators' of VBAC included: mother-newborn bonding; support from partner and family; desire for vaginal birth; previous VBAC experience; shorter postpartum recovery; partner and family support; social support from other women; healthcare professionals' attitudes; communication and respectful maternity care; and counseling. 'Barriers' included: anxiety and fear of the unknown; healthcare professional's misinformation and attitudes; coercive counseling; pain related to labor; loss of control; and perceived risk to mother or newborn.
conclusionsVBAC decision-making is influenced by past birth experiences, perceived support, and current concerns. Healthcare professionals' attitudes and high-quality counseling are key to informed, unbiased choices. Continuity of care, midwifery care and education can empower women and reduce unnecessary C-sections. However, as most studies are from high-income, English-speaking countries, findings may not generalize globally.
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.