Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences

Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0251072-e0251072
Hauptverfasser: Colomar, Mercedes, Opiyo, Newton, Kingdon, Carol, Long, Qian, Nion, Soledad, Bohren, Meghan A, Betran, Ana Pilar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0251072
container_issue 5
container_start_page e0251072
container_title PloS one
container_volume 16
creator Colomar, Mercedes
Opiyo, Newton
Kingdon, Carol
Long, Qian
Nion, Soledad
Bohren, Meghan A
Betran, Ana Pilar
description Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's preferences for mode of birth and factors underlying preferences for CS. Systematic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were conducted in December 2016 and updated in May 2019 and February 2021. Studies conducted across all resource settings were eligible for inclusion, except those from China and Taiwan which have been reported in a companion publication. Phenomena of interest were opinions, views and perspectives of women regarding preferences for mode of birth, attributes of CS, societal and cultural beliefs about modes of birth, and right to choose mode of birth. Thematic synthesis of data was conducted. Confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. We included 52 studies, from 28 countries, encompassing the views and perspectives of pregnant women, non-pregnant women, women with previous CS, postpartum women, and women's partners. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and published between 2011 and 2021. Factors underlying women preferences for CS had to do mainly with strong fear of pain and injuries to the mother and child during labour or birth (High confidence), uncertainty regarding vaginal birth (High confidence), and positive views or perceived advantages of CS (High confidence). Women who preferred CS expressed resoluteness about it, but there were also many women who had a clear preference for vaginal birth and those who even developed strategies to keep their birth plans in environments that were not supportive of vaginal births (High confidence). The findings also identified that social, cultural and personal factors as well as attributes related to health systems impact on the reasons underlying women preferences for various modes of birth (High confidence). A wide variety of factors underlie women's preferences for CS in the absence of medical indications. Major factors contributing to perceptions of CS as preferable include fear of pain, uncertainty with vaginal birth and positive views on CS. Interventions need to address these factors to reduce unnecessary CS.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0251072
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2522383950</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A660787721</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f942472aba364bbc9f57d284128acebb</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A660787721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b56d78c4e4cee47624c4a86c49c1422ffbcf90257cbd329d49acf6cd653f08f43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk0trGzEQx5fS0qRpv0FpBYXSHuzqtdrVpcWkr0Ag0NdVaLUjW2YtOdKuk3z7yvEm2CWHooPE6Df_0YxmiuIlwVPCKvJhGYbodTddBw9TTEuCK_qoOCaS0YmgmD3eOx8Vz1JaYlyyWoinxRFjsiQEk-PCfA7oKqzAo3UECxEZDUlH0B4lML0LPn1CM3Q56M71uncbQLBxLXgDKN34fgHJJRQsyicX0cbBVULatwiu1xDdlkvPiydWdwlejPtJ8fvrl1-n3yfnF9_OTmfnEyMk7SdNKdqqNhy4AeCVoNxwXQvDpSGcUmsbY2VOtDJNy6hsudTGCtOKkllcW85Oitc73XUXkhrrkxQtKWV1zhhn4mxHtEEv1Tq6lY43Kminbg0hzpWOvTMdKCs55RXVjWaCN42RtqxaWnNCa22gabLWxzHa0KygNeD7qLsD0cMb7xZqHjaqxlISQrLAu1EghssBUq9WLhnoOu0hDLt3C1LKmmb0zT_ow9mN1FznBJy3Icc1W1E1EwJXdVXRbdjpA1ReLaycyc1kXbYfOLw_cMhMD9f9XA8pqbOfP_6fvfhzyL7dYxegu36RQjfcNt0hyHegiSGl3Kb3RSZYbWfhrhpqOwtqnIXs9mr_g-6d7pqf_QUsnwVK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2522383950</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Colomar, Mercedes ; Opiyo, Newton ; Kingdon, Carol ; Long, Qian ; Nion, Soledad ; Bohren, Meghan A ; Betran, Ana Pilar</creator><contributor>Ortiz-Panozo, Eduardo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Colomar, Mercedes ; Opiyo, Newton ; Kingdon, Carol ; Long, Qian ; Nion, Soledad ; Bohren, Meghan A ; Betran, Ana Pilar ; Ortiz-Panozo, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><description>Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's preferences for mode of birth and factors underlying preferences for CS. Systematic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were conducted in December 2016 and updated in May 2019 and February 2021. Studies conducted across all resource settings were eligible for inclusion, except those from China and Taiwan which have been reported in a companion publication. Phenomena of interest were opinions, views and perspectives of women regarding preferences for mode of birth, attributes of CS, societal and cultural beliefs about modes of birth, and right to choose mode of birth. Thematic synthesis of data was conducted. Confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. We included 52 studies, from 28 countries, encompassing the views and perspectives of pregnant women, non-pregnant women, women with previous CS, postpartum women, and women's partners. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and published between 2011 and 2021. Factors underlying women preferences for CS had to do mainly with strong fear of pain and injuries to the mother and child during labour or birth (High confidence), uncertainty regarding vaginal birth (High confidence), and positive views or perceived advantages of CS (High confidence). Women who preferred CS expressed resoluteness about it, but there were also many women who had a clear preference for vaginal birth and those who even developed strategies to keep their birth plans in environments that were not supportive of vaginal births (High confidence). The findings also identified that social, cultural and personal factors as well as attributes related to health systems impact on the reasons underlying women preferences for various modes of birth (High confidence). A wide variety of factors underlie women's preferences for CS in the absence of medical indications. Major factors contributing to perceptions of CS as preferable include fear of pain, uncertainty with vaginal birth and positive views on CS. Interventions need to address these factors to reduce unnecessary CS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251072</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33951101</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Academic disciplines ; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes ; Care and treatment ; Cesarean section ; Childbirth &amp; labor ; College faculty ; Colleges &amp; universities ; Data analysis ; Data collection ; Demographics ; Demography ; Editing ; Epidemiology ; Fairness ; Families &amp; family life ; Global health ; Health disparities ; Health research ; Health risks ; Information processing ; Internet ; Low income groups ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Multiple births ; Obstetrical research ; Preferences ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Public health ; Recruitment ; Reproduction ; Reproduction (biology) ; Reproductive health ; Research facilities ; Reviews ; Scholarship ; Sexual behavior ; Social Sciences ; Sociology ; Supervision ; Training ; Women ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0251072-e0251072</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Colomar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Colomar et al 2021 Colomar et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b56d78c4e4cee47624c4a86c49c1422ffbcf90257cbd329d49acf6cd653f08f43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b56d78c4e4cee47624c4a86c49c1422ffbcf90257cbd329d49acf6cd653f08f43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7424-5551</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099111/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099111/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2095,2914,23846,27323,27903,27904,33753,53769,53771,79346,79347</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33951101$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Ortiz-Panozo, Eduardo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Colomar, Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Opiyo, Newton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingdon, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Long, Qian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nion, Soledad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bohren, Meghan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Betran, Ana Pilar</creatorcontrib><title>Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's preferences for mode of birth and factors underlying preferences for CS. Systematic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were conducted in December 2016 and updated in May 2019 and February 2021. Studies conducted across all resource settings were eligible for inclusion, except those from China and Taiwan which have been reported in a companion publication. Phenomena of interest were opinions, views and perspectives of women regarding preferences for mode of birth, attributes of CS, societal and cultural beliefs about modes of birth, and right to choose mode of birth. Thematic synthesis of data was conducted. Confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. We included 52 studies, from 28 countries, encompassing the views and perspectives of pregnant women, non-pregnant women, women with previous CS, postpartum women, and women's partners. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and published between 2011 and 2021. Factors underlying women preferences for CS had to do mainly with strong fear of pain and injuries to the mother and child during labour or birth (High confidence), uncertainty regarding vaginal birth (High confidence), and positive views or perceived advantages of CS (High confidence). Women who preferred CS expressed resoluteness about it, but there were also many women who had a clear preference for vaginal birth and those who even developed strategies to keep their birth plans in environments that were not supportive of vaginal births (High confidence). The findings also identified that social, cultural and personal factors as well as attributes related to health systems impact on the reasons underlying women preferences for various modes of birth (High confidence). A wide variety of factors underlie women's preferences for CS in the absence of medical indications. Major factors contributing to perceptions of CS as preferable include fear of pain, uncertainty with vaginal birth and positive views on CS. Interventions need to address these factors to reduce unnecessary CS.</description><subject>Academic disciplines</subject><subject>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cesarean section</subject><subject>Childbirth &amp; labor</subject><subject>College faculty</subject><subject>Colleges &amp; universities</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Fairness</subject><subject>Families &amp; family life</subject><subject>Global health</subject><subject>Health disparities</subject><subject>Health research</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Low income groups</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Multiple births</subject><subject>Obstetrical research</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Recruitment</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>Reproduction (biology)</subject><subject>Reproductive health</subject><subject>Research facilities</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Scholarship</subject><subject>Sexual behavior</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Supervision</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk0trGzEQx5fS0qRpv0FpBYXSHuzqtdrVpcWkr0Ag0NdVaLUjW2YtOdKuk3z7yvEm2CWHooPE6Df_0YxmiuIlwVPCKvJhGYbodTddBw9TTEuCK_qoOCaS0YmgmD3eOx8Vz1JaYlyyWoinxRFjsiQEk-PCfA7oKqzAo3UECxEZDUlH0B4lML0LPn1CM3Q56M71uncbQLBxLXgDKN34fgHJJRQsyicX0cbBVULatwiu1xDdlkvPiydWdwlejPtJ8fvrl1-n3yfnF9_OTmfnEyMk7SdNKdqqNhy4AeCVoNxwXQvDpSGcUmsbY2VOtDJNy6hsudTGCtOKkllcW85Oitc73XUXkhrrkxQtKWV1zhhn4mxHtEEv1Tq6lY43Kminbg0hzpWOvTMdKCs55RXVjWaCN42RtqxaWnNCa22gabLWxzHa0KygNeD7qLsD0cMb7xZqHjaqxlISQrLAu1EghssBUq9WLhnoOu0hDLt3C1LKmmb0zT_ow9mN1FznBJy3Icc1W1E1EwJXdVXRbdjpA1ReLaycyc1kXbYfOLw_cMhMD9f9XA8pqbOfP_6fvfhzyL7dYxegu36RQjfcNt0hyHegiSGl3Kb3RSZYbWfhrhpqOwtqnIXs9mr_g-6d7pqf_QUsnwVK</recordid><startdate>20210505</startdate><enddate>20210505</enddate><creator>Colomar, Mercedes</creator><creator>Opiyo, Newton</creator><creator>Kingdon, Carol</creator><creator>Long, Qian</creator><creator>Nion, Soledad</creator><creator>Bohren, Meghan A</creator><creator>Betran, Ana Pilar</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-5551</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210505</creationdate><title>Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences</title><author>Colomar, Mercedes ; Opiyo, Newton ; Kingdon, Carol ; Long, Qian ; Nion, Soledad ; Bohren, Meghan A ; Betran, Ana Pilar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b56d78c4e4cee47624c4a86c49c1422ffbcf90257cbd329d49acf6cd653f08f43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Academic disciplines</topic><topic>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cesarean section</topic><topic>Childbirth &amp; labor</topic><topic>College faculty</topic><topic>Colleges &amp; universities</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Fairness</topic><topic>Families &amp; family life</topic><topic>Global health</topic><topic>Health disparities</topic><topic>Health research</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Low income groups</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Multiple births</topic><topic>Obstetrical research</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Recruitment</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>Reproduction (biology)</topic><topic>Reproductive health</topic><topic>Research facilities</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Scholarship</topic><topic>Sexual behavior</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Supervision</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Colomar, Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Opiyo, Newton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingdon, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Long, Qian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nion, Soledad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bohren, Meghan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Betran, Ana Pilar</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Colomar, Mercedes</au><au>Opiyo, Newton</au><au>Kingdon, Carol</au><au>Long, Qian</au><au>Nion, Soledad</au><au>Bohren, Meghan A</au><au>Betran, Ana Pilar</au><au>Ortiz-Panozo, Eduardo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-05-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0251072</spage><epage>e0251072</epage><pages>e0251072-e0251072</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's preferences for mode of birth and factors underlying preferences for CS. Systematic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were conducted in December 2016 and updated in May 2019 and February 2021. Studies conducted across all resource settings were eligible for inclusion, except those from China and Taiwan which have been reported in a companion publication. Phenomena of interest were opinions, views and perspectives of women regarding preferences for mode of birth, attributes of CS, societal and cultural beliefs about modes of birth, and right to choose mode of birth. Thematic synthesis of data was conducted. Confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. We included 52 studies, from 28 countries, encompassing the views and perspectives of pregnant women, non-pregnant women, women with previous CS, postpartum women, and women's partners. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and published between 2011 and 2021. Factors underlying women preferences for CS had to do mainly with strong fear of pain and injuries to the mother and child during labour or birth (High confidence), uncertainty regarding vaginal birth (High confidence), and positive views or perceived advantages of CS (High confidence). Women who preferred CS expressed resoluteness about it, but there were also many women who had a clear preference for vaginal birth and those who even developed strategies to keep their birth plans in environments that were not supportive of vaginal births (High confidence). The findings also identified that social, cultural and personal factors as well as attributes related to health systems impact on the reasons underlying women preferences for various modes of birth (High confidence). A wide variety of factors underlie women's preferences for CS in the absence of medical indications. Major factors contributing to perceptions of CS as preferable include fear of pain, uncertainty with vaginal birth and positive views on CS. Interventions need to address these factors to reduce unnecessary CS.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33951101</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0251072</doi><tpages>e0251072</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-5551</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0251072-e0251072
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2522383950
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Sociological Abstracts; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Academic disciplines
Beliefs, opinions and attitudes
Care and treatment
Cesarean section
Childbirth & labor
College faculty
Colleges & universities
Data analysis
Data collection
Demographics
Demography
Editing
Epidemiology
Fairness
Families & family life
Global health
Health disparities
Health research
Health risks
Information processing
Internet
Low income groups
Medicine and Health Sciences
Multiple births
Obstetrical research
Preferences
Pregnancy
Pregnant women
Public health
Recruitment
Reproduction
Reproduction (biology)
Reproductive health
Research facilities
Reviews
Scholarship
Sexual behavior
Social Sciences
Sociology
Supervision
Training
Women
Womens health
title Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T05%3A29%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20women%20prefer%20caesarean%20sections?%20A%20qualitative%20evidence%20synthesis%20of%20their%20views%20and%20experiences&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Colomar,%20Mercedes&rft.date=2021-05-05&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0251072&rft.epage=e0251072&rft.pages=e0251072-e0251072&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0251072&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA660787721%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2522383950&rft_id=info:pmid/33951101&rft_galeid=A660787721&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_f942472aba364bbc9f57d284128acebb&rfr_iscdi=true