Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDaly, Deirdreen
dc.contributor.authorPanda, Sunitaen
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-25T11:51:25Z
dc.date.available2021-01-25T11:51:25Z
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.date.submitted2018en
dc.identifier.citationPanda S, Begley C, Daly D, Clinicians' views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, PLOS ONE, 13, 7, 2018, e0200941en
dc.identifier.otherYen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2262/94773
dc.descriptionPUBLISHEDen
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en
dc.format.extente0200941en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPLOS ONEen
dc.relation.ispartofseries13en
dc.relation.ispartofseries7en
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200941en
dc.rightsYen
dc.titleClinicians' views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studiesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.contributor.sponsorHealth Research Board (HRB)en
dc.type.supercollectionscholarly_publicationsen
dc.type.supercollectionrefereed_publicationsen
dc.identifier.peoplefinderurlhttp://people.tcd.ie/dalydeen
dc.identifier.peoplefinderurlhttp://people.tcd.ie/pandasen
dc.identifier.rssinternalid190806en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200941en
dc.rights.ecaccessrightsopenAccess
dc.contributor.sponsorGrantNumberHPF-2016-1671en
dc.relation.sourcehttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200941en
dc.relation.citesCitesen
dc.subject.TCDThemeInclusive Societyen
dc.subject.TCDTagCAESAREAN SECTIONen
dc.subject.TCDTagLITERATURE REVIEWSen
dc.subject.TCDTagMaternity Careen
dc.subject.TCDTagREVIEWen
dc.subject.TCDTagREVIEW LITERATUREen
dc.subject.TCDTagRisk in Maternity Careen
dc.subject.TCDTagSURGERY, CAESAREAN SECTIONen
dc.subject.TCDTagSYSTEMATIC REVIEWen
dc.subject.TCDTagSystematic reviews and meta analysesen
dc.subject.TCDTagVaginal birth after caesareanen
dc.subject.TCDTagsystematic reviewsen
dc.subject.TCDTagvaginal birth after caesarean sectionen
dc.identifier.rssurihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0200941en
dc.identifier.orcid_id0000-0003-3045-9894en
dc.status.accessibleNen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record