IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies

Author

Listed:
  • Sunita Panda
  • Cecily Begley
  • Deirdre Daly

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section rates are increasing worldwide and are a growing concern with limited explanation of the factors that influence the rising trend. Understanding obstetricians’ and midwives’ views can give insight to the problem. This systematic review aimed to offer insight and understanding, through aggregation, summary, synthesis and interpretation of findings from studies that report obstetricians’ and midwives’ views on the factors that influence the decision to perform caesarean section. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed (1958–2016), CINAHL (1988–2016), Maternity and Infant Care (1971–2016), PsycINFO (1980–2016) and Web of Science (1991–2016) were searched in September 2016. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, published in English, whose aim was to explore obstetricians’ and/or midwives’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section were included. Papers were independently reviewed by two authors for selection by title, abstract and full text. Thomas et al’s 12 assessment criteria checklist (2003) was used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. Result: The review included 34 studies: 19 quantitative, 14 qualitative, and one using mixed methods, involving 7785 obstetricians and 1197 midwives from 20 countries. Three main themes, each with several subthemes, emerged. Theme 1: “clinicians’ personal beliefs”–(‘Professional philosophies’; ‘beliefs in relation to women’s request for CS’; ‘ambiguous versus clear clinical reasons’); Theme 2: “health care systems”–(‘litigation’; ‘resources’; ‘private versus public/insurance/payments’; ‘guidelines and management policy’). Theme 3: “clinicians’ characteristics” (‘personal convenience’; ‘clinicians’ demographics’; ‘confidence and skills’). Conclusion: This systematic review and metasynthesis identified clinicians’ personal beliefs as a major factor that influenced the decision to perform caesarean section, further contributed by the influence of factors related to the health care system and clinicians’ characteristics. Obstetricians and midwives are directly involved in the decision to perform a caesarean section, hence their perspectives are vital in understanding various factors that have influence on decision-making for caesarean section. These results can help clinicians identify and acknowledge their role as crucial members in the decision-making process for caesarean section within their organisation, and to develop intervention studies to reduce caesarean section rates in future.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunita Panda & Cecily Begley & Deirdre Daly, 2018. "Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200941
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200941
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200941&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200941?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aoife Brick & Richard Layte, 2011. "Exploring Trends in the Rate of Caesarean Section in Ireland 1999-2007," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 42(4), pages 383-406.
    2. Bryant, Joanne & Porter, Maree & Tracy, Sally K. & Sullivan, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1192-1201, September.
    3. Kabakian-Khasholian, Tamar & Kaddour, Afamia & DeJong, Jocelyn & Shayboub, Rawan & Nassar, Anwar, 2007. "The policy environment encouraging C-section in Lebanon," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 37-49, September.
    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. Muhammad Fawad Rasool & Saira Akhtar & Iltaf Hussain & Abdul Majeed & Imran Imran & Hamid Saeed & Muqarrab Akbar & Muhammad Omer Chaudhry & Anees ur Rehman & Waseem Ashraf & Faleh Alqahtani & Hussain , 2021. "A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess the Frequency and Risk Factors Associated with Cesarean Section in Southern Punjab, Pakistan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-11, August.
    2. Sylvia Kirchengast & Beda Hartmann, 2018. "Recent Lifestyle Parameters Are Associated with Increasing Caesarean Section Rates among Singleton Term Births in Austria," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Anna Martín-Arribas & Rafael Vila-Candel & Rhona O’Connell & Martina Dillon & Inmaculada Vila-Bellido & M. Ángeles Beneyto & Inmaculada De Molina-Fernández & Nerea Rodríguez-Conesa & Cristina González, 2020. "Transfers of Care between Healthcare Professionals in Obstetric Units of Different Sizes across Spain and in a Hospital in Ireland: The MidconBirth Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-15, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Abdul-Rahim, Hanan F. & Abu-Rmeileh, Niveen Mohammad Elias & Wick, Laura, 2009. "Cesarean section deliveries in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt): An analysis of the 2006 Palestinian Family Health Survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 151-156, December.
    3. Tully, Kristin P. & Ball, Helen L., 2013. "Misrecognition of need: Women's experiences of and explanations for undergoing cesarean delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-111.
    4. Guccio, Calogero & Lisi, Domenico, 2016. "Thus do all. Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services in a highly decentralized healthcare system," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    5. Patricia Kennedy, 2012. "Change in Maternity Provision in Ireland,“Elephants on the Move”," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 377-395.
    6. Miller, Amy Chasteen & Shriver, Thomas E., 2012. "Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 709-716.
    7. Wen-Yi Chen, 2013. "Do caesarean section rates ‘catch-up’? Evidence from 14 European countries," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 328-340, December.
    8. Paddy Gillespie & Sharon Walsh & John Cullinan & Declan Devane, 2019. "An Analysis of Antenatal Care Pathways to Mode of Birth in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 50(2), pages 391-427.
    9. Mark E. McGovern, 2016. "Progress and the Lack of Progress in Addressing Infant Health and Infant Health Inequalities in Ireland during the 20th Century," Economics Working Papers 16-05, Queen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0200941. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.