Observational studyThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2026
Normalising Choice: An Observational Study of Australian Clinicians' Perspectives on Written Informed Consent for Vaginal Birth.
Observational study in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Normalising Choice: An Observational Study of Australian Clinicians' Perspectives on Written Informed Consent for Vaginal Birth.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe NSW Birth Trauma Report identified flawed consent processes and poor calibre antenatal information to have harmed birthing women. Written informed consent for vaginal birth may improve carer accountability and is currently applied in limited circumstances, for example, vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC).
aimsThis study explores how informed women are about birth, as perceived by clinicians, and perspectives on the implications of written informed consent for vaginal birth. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study uses survey-based research for quantitative data and inductive content analysis for open-ended questions. Main outcome measures include carer perceptions on consent to the mode and/or location of birth and arguments against/in favour of written informed consent.
resultsOne thousand two hundred and seventy-one responses were analysed for the final results, with 851 (67%) obstetric (Obs) and 420 (33%) midwifery (MW) respondents. Obs were eight times likelier to believe that women are never/rarely fully informed regarding vaginal birth (p < 0.001). The majority in both cohorts agreed women are frequently/always fully informed about VBAC. However, only 49 (6.6%) Obs and 20 (6%) MW were aware of written informed consent forms in use for vaginal birth. Themes developed include-'helpless clinicians' facing impediments to consent, flawed understanding of consent, rejection of consent requirements, juxtaposing consent with normality, disruption to collaboration and antenatal information undermining consent.
conclusionsMaternity carers in this Australian survey agree women are not fully informed regarding the risks and benefits of birth. Written informed consent alongside adjuncts like birth plans or technology-based platforms may offer a way ahead for the future.
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.