ArticleReproductive health2025
Caesarean section on maternal request - a qualitative study of stakeholders´ views.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. 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.
- Healthcare providers' perspectives on implementing evidence-based practice guidelines to reduce cesarean section rates: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section on maternal request (CSMR) raises ethical and clinical challenges despite Sweden's low overall caesarean section (CS) rate. National written recommendations are restrictive, yet regional differences suggest unequal care. While previous research has focused on women and healthcare professionals, little is known about the views on CSMR of policymakers and other key stakeholders. The aim of this study was to investigate how stakeholders in the Swedish healthcare system view CSMR in relation to medical considerations, individual autonomy and societal values.
methodsA qualitative study with an inductive approach was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Sixteen stakeholders were recruited, including regional politicians, policymakers, national authority representatives, and members from organisations and associations with relevant interest and expertise in the field.
resultsFive themes were generated: (1) Caesarean section is a valid way of giving birth for some; (2) The right to choose and the decision process are complex issues; (3) Individual options for childbirth are desirable; (4) There is a lack of trust in maternity care; (5) Economic and ethical challenges in maternity care exist. The participants viewed CSMR as a legitimate option for some women, despite the increased medical risks, which were considered concerning but not disqualifying. Support and guidance in decision-making were considered essential by the participants. They valued continuity in care and emotional support highly. The participants expressed the views that distrust in Swedish maternity care was linked to media portrayals and inconsistent handling of CSMR. Economic and ethical concerns included questions of resource allocation and the scope of public healthcare responsibilities. The option to pay privately for a planned CS was broadly rejected by the participants.
conclusionsThis study highlights the complexity of CSMR and its varied perspectives. While individual risks may be low, population-level risks could rise with increased prevalence, and the perception of risk varies depending on perspective. Both medical and psychological risks should inform decisions, with counselling seen as crucial by the participants. Continuity of midwife care models may offer an alternative to CSMR for some. Stakeholders are key to ensuring clear guidelines, equal care, and trust in the system.
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.