Promotion of Family-Centered Birth With Gentle Cesarean Delivery
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: In this commentary we describe our experience developing a "gentle cesarean" program at a community hospital housing a family medicine residency program. The gentle cesarean technique has been popularized in recent obstetrics literature as a viable option to enhance the experience and outcomes of women and families undergoing cesarean delivery. METHODS: Skin-to-skin placement of the infant in the operating room with no separation of mother and infant, reduction of extraneous noise, and initiation of breastfeeding in the operating room distinguish this technique from traditional cesarean delivery. Collaboration among family physicians, obstetricians, midwives, pediatricians, neonatologists, anesthesiologists, nurses, and operating room personnel facilitated the provision of gentle cesarean delivery to families requiring an operative birth. RESULTS: Among 144 gentle cesarean births performed from 2009 to 2012, complication rates were similar to or lower than those for traditional cesarean births. Gentle cesarean delivery is now standard of care at our institution. CONCLUSION: By sharing our experience, we hope to help other hospitals develop gentle cesarean programs. Family physicians should play an integral role in this process.
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?
The existing literature on practice change shows that transformations to skin-to-skin cesarean birth are possible.
“Nonetheless, the existing literature on practice change shows that such transformations are possible.23,46”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Skin-to-skin cesarean births are the exception rather than the norm, and translating knowledge into routine practice for scheduled cesarean births has been challenging.
“Despite a push to increase skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth (skin-to-skin cesarean birth),23–25 such births are the exception rather than the norm, since translating this knowledge into routine practice for scheduled cesarean births has been challenging.”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Evidence suggests that, from the patient's perspective, skin-to-skin cesarean birth enhances the maternal experience of an uncomplicated cesarean birth.
“evidence suggests that, from the patient’s perspective, skin-to-skin cesarean birth enhances the maternal experience of an uncomplicated cesarean birth23,29”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Women who deliver via cesarean birth versus vaginally report a less satisfactory birth experience, have higher rates of postpartum depression and are more likely to have difficulty breastfeeding.
“Given that women who deliver via cesarean birth versus vaginally report a less satisfactory birth experience,31 have higher rates of postpartum depression and are more likely to have difficulty breastfeeding,23,31”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Among 144 skin-to-skin cesarean births from 2009 to 2012 at a US community hospital housing a family medicine residency program, complication rates were similar to or lower than those for cesarean deliveries without skin-to-skin contact.
“Among 144 skin-to-skin cesarean births from 2009 to 2012 at a US community hospital housing a family medicine residency program, complication rates were similar to or lower than those for cesarean deliveries without skin-to-skin contact.23”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
Lagercrantz, H., & Slotkin, T. A. (1986) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0486-100 · Cited by 448 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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
Wollny, K., Metcalfe, A., Corrigan, C., Drobot, A., Gilmour, L., Wood, S., Wilson, R. D., Gramlich, L., & Nelson, G. (2021) · Birth · doi:10.1111/birt.12561 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Magee, S. R., Battle, C., Morton, J., & Nothnagle, M.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2014-09-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 690-693
- ISSN
- 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7118
- OpenAlex
- W2165866483
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Keywords
- cesarean section, skin-to-skin contact, operating room, breastfeeding initiation, general practitioners, interprofessional collaboration, community hospitals
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cesarean Section, Female, Hospitals, Community, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Mother-Child Relations, Object Attachment, Pregnancy, Rhode Island, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Touch, Patient-Centered Care, Organizational Case Studies, Standard of Care
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
