IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v143y2015icp232-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fear, blame and transparency: Obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting

Author

Listed:
  • Litorp, Helena
  • Mgaya, Andrew
  • Mbekenga, Columba K.
  • Kidanto, Hussein L.
  • Johnsdotter, Sara
  • Essén, Birgitta

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been growing attention to the overuse of caesarean section (CS) globally. In light of a high CS rate at a university hospital in Tanzania, we aimed to explore obstetric caregivers' rationales for their hospital's CS rate to identify factors that might cause CS overuse. After participant observations, we performed 22 semi-structured individual in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions with 5–6 caregivers in each. Respondents were consultants, specialists, residents, and midwives. The study relied on a framework of naturalistic inquiry and we analyzed data using thematic analysis. As a conceptual framework, we situated our findings in the discussion of how transparency and auditing can induce behavioral change and have unintended effects. Caregivers had divergent opinions on whether the hospital's CS rate was a problem or not, but most thought that there was an overuse of CS. All caregivers rationalized the high CS rate by referring to circumstances outside their control. In private practice, some stated they were affected by the economic compensation for CS, while others argued that unnecessary CSs were due to maternal demand. Residents often missed support from their senior colleagues when making decisions, and felt that midwives pushed them to perform CSs. Many caregivers stated that their fear of blame from colleagues and management in case of poor outcomes made them advocate for, or perform, CSs on doubtful indications. In order to lower CS rates, caregivers must acknowledge their roles as decision-makers, and strive to minimize unnecessary CSs. Although auditing and transparency are important to improve patient safety, they must be used with sensitivity regarding any unintended or counterproductive effects they might have.

Suggested Citation

  • Litorp, Helena & Mgaya, Andrew & Mbekenga, Columba K. & Kidanto, Hussein L. & Johnsdotter, Sara & Essén, Birgitta, 2015. "Fear, blame and transparency: Obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 232-240.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:143:y:2015:i:c:p:232-240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615301088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    3. McGivern, Gerry & Fischer, Michael D., 2012. "Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 289-296.
    4. Hopkins, Kristine, 2000. "Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 725-740, September.
    5. Mizrahi, Terry, 1984. "Managing medical mistakes: Ideology, insularity and accountability among internists-in-training," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 135-146, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christou, Aliki & Alam, Ashraful & Hofiani, Sayed Murtaza Sadat & Rasooly, Mohammad Hafiz & Mubasher, Adela & Rashidi, Mohammad Khakerah & Dibley, Michael J. & Raynes-Greenow, Camille, 2019. "How community and healthcare provider perceptions, practices and experiences influence reporting, disclosure and data collection on stillbirth: Findings of a qualitative study in Afghanistan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Sara Rivenes Lafontan & Johanne Sundby & Hussein L. Kidanto & Columba K. Mbekenga & Hege L. Ersdal, 2018. "Acquiring Knowledge about the Use of a Newly Developed Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitor: A Qualitative Study Among Birth Attendants in Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Recio Alcaide, Adela & Arranz, José M., 2022. "An impact evaluation of the strategy for normal birth care on caesarean section rates and perinatal mortality in Spain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 24-34.
    4. Lange, Isabelle L. & Kanhonou, Lydie & Goufodji, Sourou & Ronsmans, Carine & Filippi, Véronique, 2016. "The costs of ‘free’: Experiences of facility-based childbirth after Benin's caesarean section exemption policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 53-62.
    5. Signe Svallfors, 2024. "Giving Birth While Facing Death: Cesarean Sections and Community Violence in Latin America," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Smith-Oka, Vania & Flores, Brenda, 2022. "Competing Narratives: Examining Obstetricians’ Decision-Making Regarding Indications for Cesarean Sections and Abdominal Incisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fischer, Michael Daniel & Ferlie, Ewan, 2013. "Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 30-49.
    2. Spendlove, Zoey, 2018. "Medical revalidation as professional regulatory reform: Challenging the power of enforceable trust in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 64-71.
    3. Guccio, C. & Lisi, D., 2014. "Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services: Theory and evidence from the Italian hospital sector," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    5. Ovretveit, John, 2009. "The contribution of new social science research to patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1780-1783, December.
    6. Archer, Julian & Nunn, Suzanne & Regan de Bere, Sam, 2017. "The McDonaldization of appraisal? Doctors’ views of the early impacts of medical revalidation in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 994-1000.
    7. Jeff Everett & Constance Friesen & Dean Neu & Abu Shiraz Rahaman, 2018. "We Have Never Been Secular: Religious Identities, Duties, and Ethics in Audit Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1121-1142, December.
    8. Chandwani, Rajesh & Edacherian, Saneesh & Sud, Mukesh, 2019. "Whose Empowerment? National Digital Infrastructure and India’s Healthcare sector," IIMA Working Papers WP 2019-02-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    9. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    10. Kang, Minah & Reich, Michael R., 2014. "Between credit claiming and blame avoidance: The changing politics of priority-setting for Korea's National Health Insurance System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 9-17.
    11. Cinar, Emre & Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Acik, Ahmet Coskun & Simms, Chris, 2024. "Public sector innovation in a city state: exploring innovation types and national context in Singapore," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    12. Turner, Simon & Higginson, Juliet & Oborne, C. Alice & Thomas, Rebecca E. & Ramsay, Angus I.G. & Fulop, Naomi J., 2014. "Codifying knowledge to improve patient safety: A qualitative study of practice-based interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 169-176.
    13. Heald, David & Steel, David, 2018. "The governance of public bodies in times of austerity," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 149-160.
    14. Döring, Matthias, 2020. "“Explain, but make no Excuses”: Service Recovery after Public Service Failures," SocArXiv txmdy, Center for Open Science.
    15. Ferlie, Ewan & Mcgivern, Gerry & FitzGerald, Louise, 2012. "A new mode of organizing in health care? Governmentality and managed networks in cancer services in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 340-347.
    16. Cooper, Christine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2021. "Hillsborough: The fight for accountability," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    17. Armenia ANDRONICEANU, 2012. "transparency of the decision-making process at the urban level – case of bucharest sectors," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2012(8), pages 294-301, June.
    18. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    19. Luisa Masciullo & Luciano Petruzziello & Giuseppina Perrone & Francesco Pecorini & Caterina Remiddi & Paola Galoppi & Roberto Brunelli, 2020. "Caesarean Section on Maternal Request: An Italian Comparative Study on Patients’ Characteristics, Pregnancy Outcomes and Guidelines Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Asadu Ikechukwu, Ph.D & Chukwujekwu Charles Onwuka Ph.D, 2021. "Transparency and Accountability in Government: The Nigerian Experience," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(08), pages 16-29, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:143:y:2015:i:c:p:232-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.