Early skin-to-skin contact for healthy full-term infants after vaginal and caesarean delivery: a qualitative study on clinician perspectives
Open accessAbstract
Aims and objectives: This study aims to provide insight into key factors from a clinician's perspective that influence uninterrupted early skin‐to‐skin contact after vaginal and caesarean delivery of healthy full‐term infants. Background: Early skin‐to‐skin contact of healthy full‐term infants ideally begins immediately after birth and continues for the first hour or the first breastfeed as recommended by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative. However, adoption of early skin‐to‐skin contact is low in many settings and the barriers that hinder its universal use are not well understood. Design: An exploratory qualitative research design using semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Eleven clinicians were interviewed, including five registered nurses and one medical doctor from the obstetrics and gynaecology unit as well as four registered nurses and one medical doctor from the neonatal intensive care unit. Core topics that were discussed included perceptions on early skin‐to‐skin contact and facilitating factors and barriers to early skin‐to‐skin contact after vaginal and caesarean delivery. Interview sessions were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. A coding framework was developed from which subthemes emerged. The overall themes were adopted from Lee et al.'s thematic framework to categorise factors into institutional, familial‐level and implementation factors. Findings: Critical institutional factors included inadequate staffing and education of clinicians on early skin‐to‐skin contact. On a familial level, parental education and motivation were identified as important factors. Barriers to implementation included the absence of a clinical algorithm and unclear definitions for eligible mothers and infants. Conclusions: Various facilitating factors and barriers to early skin‐to‐skin contact of healthy full‐term infants born via vaginal and caesarean delivery were identified. Relevance to clinical practice: Addressing these factors can help to provide a better understanding of clinician perspectives on early skin‐to‐skin contact and help guide its implementation as standard of care for healthy full‐term infants.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Practical concerns that may complicate provision of skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth include lack of a standardized protocol, nursing staff availability, maternal or neonatal instability, type of anesthetic, support from anesthesia, clinician education, and practice and behaviour changes in a busy clinical environment.
“other practical concerns that may complicate the provision of skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth include the lack of a standardized protocol,32 nursing staff availability,33 maternal or neonatal instability,34 type of anesthetic,35 support from anesthesia, 35 clinician education,32 and the challenge of practice and behaviour changes in a busy clinical environment.25”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Machold, C. A., O’Rinn, S. E., McKellin, W. H., Ballantyne, G., & Barrett, J. F. R. (2021) · CMAJ Open · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200079 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koopman, I., Callaghan‐Koru, J. A., Alaofin, O., Argani, C. H., & Farzin, A.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Farzin, Azadeh
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-03-30
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 9-10
- Pages
- 1367-1376
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2326051296
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 9.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.library.uu.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Johns Hopkins University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Breastfeeding Practices and Influences
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Keywords
- early skin-to-skin contact, kangaroo mother care, term infants, vaginal delivery, cesarean section, clinician perspectives, implementation barriers, enabling factors, Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, neonatal intensive care, institutional factors, parental education, clinical algorithms
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Mother-Child Relations, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Pregnancy, Baltimore, Delivery, Obstetric, Young Adult, Kangaroo-Mother Care Method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review