The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 5 are not checked yet.
Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and institutional limitations in health facilities”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014
Betrán, A. P., Ye, J., Moller, A.-B., Zhang, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., & Torloni, M. R. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 · Cited by 2,250
Vogel, J. P., Betrán, A. P., Vindevoghel, N., Souza, J. P., Torloni, M. R., Zhang, J., Tunçalp, Ö., Mori, R., Morisaki, N., Ortiz‐Panozo, E., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(15)70094-x · Cited by 1,038
Lucas, P. J., Baird, J., Arai, L., Law, C., & Roberts, H. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-4 · Cited by 567
Ng, S., Cameron, C. M., Hills, A. P., McClure, R., & Scuffham, P. (2014) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-314 · Cited by 398
Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section
Mylonas, I. G., & Friese, K. (2015) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489 · Cited by 389
Raza, W. A., de Poel, E. V., Panda, P. K., Dror, D. M., & Bedi, A. S. (2015) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1254-9 · Cited by 351
Mazzoni, A., Althabe, F., Liu, N., Bonotti, A., Gibbons, L., Sánchez, A., & Belizán, J. (2011) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x · Cited by 306
Psychometric properties of the Swedish childbirth self-efficacy inventory (Swe-CBSEI)
Carlsson, I., Ziegert, K., & Nissen, E. (2014) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-1 · Cited by 295
Weaver, J. J., Statham, H., & Richards, M. (2007) · Birth · doi:10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00144.x · Cited by 203
Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request
Bettes, B. A., Coleman‐Cowger, V. H., Zinberg, S., Spong, C. Y., Portnoy, B., DeVoto, E., & Schulkin, J. A. (2007) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000249608.11864.b6 · Cited by 162
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- L Gibbons, 2010, The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage, World Health Report
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wilson, R. D., Caughey, A. B., Wood, S. L., Macones, G. A., Wrench, I. J., Huang, J., Norman, M., Pettersson, K., Fawcett, W. J., Shalabi, M. M., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.015 · Cited by 315
Hirsh‐Yechezkel, G., Glasser, S., Farhi, A., Levitan, G., Shachar, Y., Zaslavsky‐Paltiel, I., Boyko, V., Ezra, Y., & Lerner‐Geva, L. (2022) · Women s Health · doi:10.1177/17455057221125366 · Cited by 157
Shared decision‐making in maternity care: Acknowledging and overcoming epistemic defeaters
Begley, K., Daly, D., Panda, S., & Begley, C. (2019) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.13243 · Cited by 125
Self-citationWhat are women’s mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review
Coates, D., Thirukumar, P., Spear, V., Brown, G. A., & Henry, A. (2019) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.005 · Cited by 103
Elite female athletes’ experiences of symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction: A systematic review
Culleton-Quinn, E., Bø, K., Fleming, N., Mockler, D., Cusack, C., & Daly, D. (2022) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05302-6 · Cited by 88
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Panda, S., Begley, C., & Daly, D.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Panda, Sunita
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2018-07-27
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0200941
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6063415
- OpenAlex
- W2883011608
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2018-08-15)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Research Board (HPF-2016-1671)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Keywords
- cesarean section, cesarean section rate, clinical decision-making, midwives' perceptions, clinician beliefs, health system factors, litigation, clinical guidelines, resource availability
- MeSH terms
- Cesarean Section, Decision Making, Health Personnel, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Midwifery, Obstetrics
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
