Women's experiences and satisfaction with having a cesarean birth: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND:With around one third of woman having a cesarean birth, better understanding of women's experiences of having a cesarean is vital to improve women's experiences of care. The aim of this review was to gain insight into women's experiences of and satisfaction with cesarean and to identify factors that contribute to women's poor experiences of care. METHODS:Using an integrative methodology, evidence was systematically considered in relation to women's experiences of cesarean birth and whether they were satisfied with their experience of care. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined. RESULTS:Twenty-six studies were included. Although the majority of women were satisfied with their cesarean, a large minority of women were dissatisfied and reported a negative experience. In particular, women who had an emergency cesarean were less satisfied than women who had a vaginal birth. Nonmedical factors or experiences that appear associated with dissatisfaction include (a) feeling ignored and disempowered; (b) experiencing a loss of control; (c) not being informed; and (d) birth values that favor vaginal birth. CONCLUSIONS:Women's experiences of cesarean birth appear influenced by the circumstances (emergency vs planned), the extent to which they felt involved in decision-making and in control of their experience, and their birth values and beliefs. Increasing antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum communication and shared decision-making may help engage women as an active participant in their own birth

What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND:The optimal caesarean section rate is estimated to be between 10-15%; however, it is much higher in high and many middle-income countries and continues to be lower in some middle and low-income countries. While a range of factors influence caesarean section rates, women's mode of birth preferences also play a role. The aim of this study was to map the literature in relation to women's mode of birth preferences, and identify underlying reasons for, and factors associated with, these preferences. METHOD:Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined. FINDINGS:A total of 65 studies were included. While the majority of women prefer a vaginal birth, between 5-20% in high-income countries and 1.4 to 50% in low-middle-income countries prefer a caesarean section. The six main reasons or factors associated with a mode of birth preference were: (1) perceptions of safety; (2) fear of pain; (3) previous birth experience; (4) encouragement and dissuasion from health professionals; (5) social and cultural influences; and (6) access to information and educational levels. CONCLUSION:To help ensure women receive the required care that is aligned with their preferences, processes of shared decision-making should be implemented. Shared decision-making has the potential to reduce the rate of unnecessary interventions, and also improve the willingness of women to accept a medically-indicated caesarean section in low-income countries

Women's experiences of intrapartum care and recovery in relation to planned caesarean sections: An interview study

© 2020 Australian College of Midwives Problem and background: Approximately one third of women in high-income countries give birth by caesarean section (CS). Better understanding of women's CS experiences is vital in identifying opportunities to improve women's experience of care. Aim: To identify opportunities for service improvement by investigating Australian women's experiences of care and recovery when undergoing a planned CS. Methods: Qualitative telephone interview study with 33 women who had a planned CS at one of eight Australian hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit women's perspectives, experiences and beliefs surrounding their planned CS. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using NVivo-12. Results: Women's experiences of CS care were mixed. Regarding intrapartum care, many women stated their planned CS was a positive experience compared to a previous emergency CS, but was scarier and more medicalised compared to vaginal birth. CS recovery was viewed more negatively, with women feeling unprepared. They reported disliking how CS recovery restricted their role as a mother, wanting more time in hospital, and greater support and continuity of care. Discussion: Women reported largely positive intrapartum experiences of planned CS but relatively negative experiences of CS recovery. They wished for time in hospital and support from staff during recovery, and continuity of care. Conclusion: By incorporating shared decision-making antenatally, clinicians can discuss women's birth expectations with them and better prepare them for their planned CS and recovery

What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review

Background: The optimal caesarean section rate is estimated to be between 10–15%; however, it is much higher in high and many middle-income countries and continues to be lower in some middle and low-income countries. While a range of factors influence caesarean section rates, women's mode of birth preferences also play a role. The aim of this study was to map the literature in relation to women's mode of birth preferences, and identify underlying reasons for, and factors associated with, these preferences. Method: Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined. Findings: A total of 65 studies were included. While the majority of women prefer a vaginal birth, between 5–20% in high-income countries and 1.4 to 50% in low-middle-income countries prefer a caesarean section. The six main reasons or factors associated with a mode of birth preference were: (1) perceptions of safety; (2) fear of pain; (3) previous birth experience; (4) encouragement and dissuasion from health professionals; (5) social and cultural influences; and (6) access to information and educational levels. Conclusion: To help ensure women receive the required care that is aligned with their preferences, processes of shared decision-making should be implemented. Shared decision-making has the potential to reduce the rate of unnecessary interventions, and also improve the willingness of women to accept a medically-indicated caesarean section in low-income countries

Making shared decisions in relation to planned caesarean sections: What are we up to?

OBJECTIVE:To map the literature in relation to shared decision making (SDM) for planned caesarean section (CS), particularly women's experiences in receiving the information they need to make informed decisions, their knowledge of the risks and benefits of CS, the experiences and attitudes of clinicians in relation to SDM, and interventions that support women to make informed decisions. METHODS:Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018. RESULTS:34 studies were included, with 9750 women and 3313 clinicians. Overall women reported limited SDM, and many did not have the information required to make informed decisions. Clinicians generally agreed with SDM, while recognising it often does not occur. Decision aids and educational interventions were viewed positively by women. CONCLUSION:Many women were not actively involved in decision-making. Decision aids show promise as a SDM-enhancing tool. Studies that included clinicians suggest uncertainty regarding SDM, although willingness to engage. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Moving from clinician-led decision-making to SDM for CS has potential to improve patient experiences, however this will require considerable clinician training, and implementation of SDM interventions

Women's Experiences and Involvement in Decision-Making in Relation to Planned Cesarean Birth: An Interview Study.

Actively engaging women in decision-making about their own care is critical to providing woman-centered maternity care. The aim was to understand women's mode-of-birth preferences and shared decision-making experiences during planned cesarean birth (CB). Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 33 women who had planned CB at eight Australian metropolitan hospitals. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo-12. Many women preferred a vaginal birth but were willing to have a CB if the clinician recommended. Most women looked to their clinicians for information and guidance. Although many women reported receiving enough information to make informed decisions, others felt pressured into having or not having a CB, or expected to make decisions themselves. Women wished for longer consultation times, more information, and care continuity

Factors associated with women's birth beliefs and experiences of decision-making in the context of planned birth: A survey study.

Objective In many high-income countries, approximately half of all births are now planned regarding timing, either by elective Caesarean Section (CS) or induction of labour (IOL). To what degree this is explained by women's birth beliefs and preferences, and in turn, factors such as parity and ethnicity that may influence them, is contentious. Within a broader study on Timing of Birth by planned CS or IOL, we aimed to explore the association between demographic and pregnancy factors, with women's birth beliefs and experiences of planned birth decision-making in late pregnancy. Design Survey study of women's birth beliefs and experiences of planned birth decision-making. Both univariate analysis and ordinal regression modelling was performed to examine the influence of; parity; cultural background; continuity of pregnancy care; CS or IOL; and whether CS was “recommended” or “requested”, on women's stated birth beliefs and decision-making experience. Setting 8 Sydney hospitals Participants Women planned to have an IOL or CS between November 2018-July 2019. Measurement The survey included four statements regarding birth beliefs and ten statements about experiences of decision-making on a 5-item Likert scale, as well as questions about demographic and pregnancy factors that might influence these beliefs. Findings Of 340 included surveys, 56% regarded IOL and 44% CS. Women indicated strong belief both that they should be supported to make decisions about their birth and that their doctor/midwife knows what is best for them (over 90% agreement for both). Regarding decision-making, over 90% also agreed they had trust in the person providing information, understood it, and had sufficient time for both questions and decision-making. However only 58% were provided written information, 19% felt they “didn't really have a choice”, and 9% felt pressure to make a decision. On both univariate and multivariate analysis, women having CS (versus IOL) expressed more positive views of their experience and involvement in decision-making, as did women experiencing a pregnancy continuity-of-care model. Women identifying as from a specific cultural or ethnic background expressed more negative experiences. On modelling, the studied factors accounted for only a small proportion of the variation in responses (3–19%). Conclusions Continuity of pregnancy care was associated with positive decision-making experiences and cultural background with more negative experiences. Women whose planned birth was IOL versus CS also reported more negative decision-making experiences. Implications for practice Attention to improving quality of information provision, including written information, to women having IOL and women of diverse background, is recommended to improve women's experiences of planned birth decision-making

Women’s experiences of decision-making and beliefs in relation to planned caesarean section: A survey study

© 2020 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Background: The caesarean section (CS) rate is over 25% in many high-income countries, with a substantial minority of CSs occurring in women with low-risk pregnancies. CS decision-making is influenced by clinician and patient beliefs and preferences, and clinical guidelines increasingly stipulate the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). To what extent SDM occurs in practice is unclear. Aims: To identify women’s birth preferences and SDM experience regarding planned CS. Material and Methods: Survey of women at eight Sydney hospitals booked for planned CS. Demographic data, initial mode of birth preferences, reason for CS, and experiences of SDM were elicited using questions with multiple choice lists, Likert scales, and open-ended responses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using content analysis. Responses of women who perceived their CS as 'requested' vs 'recommended' were compared. Results: Of 151 respondents, repeat CS (48%) and breech presentation (14%) were the most common indications. Only 32% stated that at the beginning of pregnancy they had a definite preference for spontaneous labour and birth. Key reasons for wanting planned CS were to avoid another emergency CS, prior positive CS experience, and logistical planning. Although 15% of women felt pressured (or were unsure) about their CS decision, the majority reported positive experiences, with over 90% indicating they were informed about CS benefits and risks, had adequate information, and understood information provided. Conclusions: The majority (85%) of women appeared satisfied with the decision-making process, regardless of whether they perceived their CS as requested or recommended

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

© 2020 Coates et al. Background The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist. Methods A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool. Results 68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/preeclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), highquality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence. Conclusions While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations