31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing worldwide and the most common reason is repeat CS following previous CS. For most women a vaginal birth after a previous CS (VBAC) is a safe option. However, the rate of VBAC differs in an international perspective. Obtaining deeper knowledge of clinicians’ views on VBAC can help in understanding the factors of importance for increasing VBAC rates. Focus group interviews with clinicians and women in three countries with high VBAC rates (Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands) and three countries with low VBAC rates (Ireland, Italy and Germany) are part of “OptiBIRTH”, an ongoing research project. The study reported here aims to explore the views of clinicians from countries with low VBAC rates on factors of importance for improving VBAC rates.

          Methods

          Focus group interviews were held in Ireland, Italy and Germany. In total 71 clinicians participated in nine focus group interviews. Five central questions about VBAC were used and interviews were analysed using content analysis. The analysis was performed in each country in the native language and then translated into English. All data were then analysed together and final categories were validated in each country.

          Results

          The findings are presented in four main categories with several sub-categories: 1) “prameters for VBAC”, including the importance of the obstetric history, present obstetric factors, a positive attitude among those who are centrally involved, early follow-up after CS and antenatal classes; 2) “organisational support and resources for women undergoing a VBAC”, meaning a successful VBAC requires clinical expertise and resources during labour; 3) “fear as a key inhibitor of successful VBAC”, including understanding women’s fear of childbirth, clinicians’ fear of VBAC and the ways that clinicians’ fear can be transferred to women; and 4) “shared decision making – rapport, knowledge and confidence”, meaning ensuring consistent, realistic and unbiased information and developing trust within the clinician–woman relationship.

          Conclusions

          The findings indicate that increasing the VBAC rate depends on organisational factors, the care offered during pregnancy and childbirth, the decision-making process and the strategies employed to reduce fear in all involved.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?

            People's treatment decisions are often influenced by anecdotal rather than statistical information. This can lead to patients making decisions based on others' experiences rather than on evidence-based medicine. . To test whether the use of a quiz or pictograph decreases people's reliance on anecdotal information. . Two cross-sectional survey studies using hypothetical scenarios. Participants read a scenario describing angina and indicated a preference for either bypass surgery or balloon angioplasty. The cure rate of both treatments was presented using prose, a pictograph, a quiz, or a pictograph and quiz combination. Participants read anecdotes from hypothetical patients who described the outcome of their treatment; the number of successful anecdotes was either representative or unrepresentative of the cure rates. Setting and Participants. Prospective jurors at the Philadelphia County Courthouse and travelers at the Detroit-Wayne County Metropolitan Airport. Measurements. Proportion of respondents preferring bypass over balloon angioplasty. . In study 1, when statistical information was presented in prose, treatment choices were influenced by anecdotes, with 41% of participants choosing bypass when the anecdotes were representative and only 20% choosing it when the anecdotes were unrepresentative (x(2) = 14.40, P 0.20). In study 2, the tradeoff quiz did not reduce the impact of the anecdotes (27% v. 28% choosing bypass after receiving or not receiving the quiz, x(2) 0.20). However, the pictograph significantly reduced the impact of anecdotes, with 27% choosing bypass after receiving no pictograph and 40% choosing bypass after receiving a pictograph (x(2) = 6.44, P < 0.001). . Presenting statistical information using a pictograph can reduce the undue influence of anecdotal reasoning on treatment choices.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study.

              To use data from routine sources to compare rates of obstetric intervention in Europe both overall and for subgroups at higher risk of intervention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ingela.lundgren@gu.se
                patricia.healy@nuigalway.ie
                carrolol@tcd.ie
                cbegley@tcd.ie
                andrea.stuerck@gmx.de
                Gross.Mechthild@mh-hannover.de
                Grylka-Baeschlin.Susanne@mh-hannover.de
                jnicoletti@libero.it
                sandra.morano@unige.it
                christina.nilsson@gu.se
                LALORJ1@tcd.ie
                Journal
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2393
                10 November 2016
                10 November 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 350
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
                [2 ]School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Upper Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland
                [3 ]School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D’Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
                [4 ]Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
                [5 ]Universita Degli Studi di Genova, Via Balbi 5, 16126 Genova, Italy
                [6 ]IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Martino IST, Largo R. Benzi, 10 16132 Genova, Italy
                Article
                1144
                10.1186/s12884-016-1144-0
                5103375
                27832743
                294b6430-4fb8-4baa-b02d-9597af5fd761
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 25 February 2016
                : 1 November 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004963, Seventh Framework Programme;
                Award ID: 2007-2013
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                vbac,cs,clinicians,focus groups,qualitative study,content analysis,midwifery
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                vbac, cs, clinicians, focus groups, qualitative study, content analysis, midwifery

                Comments

                Comment on this article