Vaginal births after caesarean: What does Google think about it?

AimVaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a relatively safe alternative to repeat caesarean birth in the proper context. This important decision to undergo an elective caesarean versus VBAC is ultimately a decision of the mother. The purpose of our study was to assess the quality of online information in relation to VBAC collected using the most common search engine: Google.MethodsThe 10 most common hit sites for the keywords “VBAC” and “Vaginal birth after caesarean” were evaluated using the search engine Google. The quality of websites was rated based on the Silberg scale for accountability, the modified Abbott's criteria for presentation and the SMOG index for readability. The content of each website was compared to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) guidelines for VBAC.Findings13 out of 20 identified websites met the adequate criteria for accountability, with 85% of the websites indicating authorship. 11 websites were deemed aesthetically agreeable. The target audience, assessed by the readability score, was notably above the non-medical population with an average SMOG index score of 14.75. Only half of the websites contained recommendations, as detailed by the SOGC guidelines.ConclusionAlmost all sites target a higher academic level, making it beyond the comprehension of the general population. Woman friendly web-assessment tools should be provided to enable pregnant women to take an active role in their decision making.     

Iranian obstetricians’ views about the factors that influence pregnant women's choice of delivery method: A qualitative study

BackgroundCaesarean section is a commonly performed childbirth procedure. While caesarean section is undeniably a lifesaving procedure for some mothers and babies, it can also be an unnecessary procedure for others. Different factors may be involved in the rate of birth by caesarean section.QuestionThis qualitative study was conducted in Kashan city, Iran, to explore obstetrician's views of what might influence pregnant women's choice of delivery method.MethodsObstetricians’ views and experiences were collected using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted in a clinic or hospital, based on the preference of the 18 physicians who agreed to participate in the study. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Participants were asked key questions, including: “Why do some women prefer caesarean section?”; “What kind of delivery did you have and why?”; “What kind of delivery would you recommend to pregnant women and why?” Inductive qualitative content analysis was undertaken using the method described by Morreti with 120 initial codes categorized into six categories.FindingsThe six categories developed from the initial codes were: factors relating to women, obstetricians, delivery conditions, complications, society's beliefs and the health system.ConclusionA qualitative study conducted in Iran showed that most of the factors identified by participants facilitated the choice of caesarean section. Vaginal birth was anticipated as a painful and lengthy process, with low cultural acceptance and resulting in less income for obstetricians.     

Genital tract tears in women giving birth on a birth seat: A cohort study with prospectively collected data

BackgroundBirth positions may influence the risk of tears in the genital tract during birth. Birth positions are widely studied yet knowledge on genital tract tears following birth on a birth seat is inconclusive.AimThe objective of this study was to describe the proportion of genital tract tears in women who gave birth on a birth seat compared to women who did not.MethodAn observational cohort study based on birth information collected prospectively. In total 10 629 live, singleton, non-instrumental births in cephalic presentation were studied.ResultsFewer women who gave birth on a birth seat experienced an overall intact genital tract compared to women who gave birth in any other position. Women who gave birth on a birth seat were less likely to have an episiotomy performed. Women who gave birth vaginally on a birth seat after a previous caesarean section may have an increased risk for sustaining a sphincter tear.DiscussionIt is important to be aware of the decreased chance of an overall intact genital tract area when giving birth on a birth seat. Furthermore, there is a possibly increased risk of sphincter tear in women having a vaginal birth after caesarean. It is required and of importance to provide pregnant women with evidence-based information on factors associated with genital tract tears including birth positions.     

Exploring unwarranted clinical variation: The attitudes of midwives and obstetric medical staff regarding induction of labour and planned caesarean section

BackgroundUnexplained clinical variation is a major issue in planned birth i.e. induction of labour and planned caesarean section.AimTo map attitudes and knowledge of maternity care professionals regarding indications for planned birth, and assess inter-professional (midwifery versus medical) and intra-professional variation.MethodsA custom-created survey of medical and midwifery staff at eight Sydney hospitals. Staff were asked to rate their level of agreement with 45 “evidence-based” statements regarding caesareans and inductions on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were grouped by profession, and comparisons made of inter- and intra-professional responses.FindingsTotal 275 respondents, 78% midwifery and 21% medical. Considerable inter- and intra-professional variation was noted, with midwives generally less likely to consider any of the planned birth indications “valid” compared to medical staff. Indications for induction with most variation in midwifery responses included maternal characteristics (age≥40, obesity, ethnicity) and fetal macrosomia; and for medical personnel in-vitro fertilisation, maternal request, and routine induction at 39 weeks gestation. Indications for caesarean with most variation in midwifery responses included previous lower segment caesarean section, previous shoulder dystocia, and uncomplicated breech; and for medical personnel uncomplicated dichorionic twins. Indications with most inter-professional variation were induction at 41+ weeks versus 42+ weeks and cesarean for previous lower segment caesarean section.DiscussionBoth inter- and intra-professional variation in what were considered valid indications reflected inconsistency in underlying evidence and/or guidelines.ConclusionGreater focus on interdisciplinary education and consensus, as well as on shared decision-making with women, may be helpful in resolving these tensions.     

Caesarean section by country of birth in New South Wales,Australia

ObjectiveTo determine rates of caesarean section by country of birth and by obstetric risks.MethodsWe analysed the New South Wales Perinatal Data Collection data of women giving birth between January 2013 and December 2015. Obstetric risk was classified using the Robson’s 10-group classification. Multilevel logistic regression with a random intercept was used to measure the variation in caesarean section rate between immigrants from different countries and between regional immigrant groups.ResultsWe analysed data from 283,256 women, of whom 90,750 had a caesarean section (32.0%). A total of 100,120 women were born overseas (35.3%), and 33,028 (33.0%) had a caesarean section. The caesarean section rate among women from South and Central Asia ranged from 32.6% for women from Pakistan to 47.3% for women from Bangladesh. For South East Asia, women from Cambodia had the lowest caesarean section rate (19.5%) and women from Indonesia had the highest rate (37.3%). The caesarean section rate for North Africa and the Middle East ranged from 28.0% for women from Syria to 50.1% for women from Iran. Robson groups that accounted for most of the caesarean sections were women who had previous caesarean section (36.5%); nulliparous women, induced or caesarean section before labour (26.2%); and nulliparous women, spontaneous labour (8.9%).ConclusionsThe caesarean section rate varied significantly between women from different countries of birth within the same region. Women from some countries of birth had the higher caesarean section rates in some Robson groups.     

Maternity Care Plans: A retrospective review of a process aiming to support women who decline standard care

BackgroundAll competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. When pregnant women do so, ethical and medico-legal concerns arise and women may face difficulties accessing care. Policies guiding the provision of maternity care in these circumstances are rare and unstudied. One tertiary hospital in Australia has a process for clinicians to plan non-standard maternity care via a Maternity Care Plan (MCP).AimTo review processes and outcomes associated with MCPs from the first three and a half years of the policy's implementation.MethodsRetrospective cohort study comprising chart audit, review of demographic data and clinical outcomes, and content analysis of MCPs.FindingsMCPs (n = 52) were most commonly created when women declined recommended caesareans, preferring vaginal birth after two caesareans (VBAC2, n = 23; 44.2%) or vaginal breech birth (n = 7, 13.5%) or when women declined continuous intrapartum monitoring for vaginal birth after one caesarean (n = 8, 15.4%). Intrapartum care deviated from MCPs in 50% of cases, due to new or worsening clinical indications or changed maternal preferences. Clinical outcomes were reassuring. Most VBAC2 or VBAC>2 (69%) and vaginal breech births (96.3%) were attempted without MCPs, but women with MCPs appeared more likely to birth vaginally (VBAC2 success rate 66.7% with MCP, 17.5% without; vaginal breech birth success rate, 50% with MCP, 32.5% without).ConclusionsMCPs enabled clinicians to provide care outside of hospital policies but were utilised for a narrow range of situations, with significant variation in their application. Further research is needed to understand the experiences of women and clinicians.     

Exploring outcomes for women and neonates having skin-to-skin contact during caesarean birth: A quasi-experimental design and qualitative study

ProblemWomen having an elective caesarean birth are often separated from their babies at birth with newborns transferred to a postnatal ward with the significant other.BackgroundTwo midwives were employed in 2019 to provide skin-to-skin contact for women who planned for elective caesarean births in a public hospital in metropolitan New South Wales with 4000 births per year and a 39% CB rate (57.8% of these births being elective).AimTo compare the outcomes for women and their newborns on the effects of skin-to-skin contact at elective caesarean births within the first five minutes of birth to those who did not have skin-to-skin contact and to explore the lived experiences of women having skin-to-skin contact during their elective caesarean births.MethodsA quasi-experimental design study with a qualitative component of in-depth interviews. Quantitative analyses included independent t-tests, chi square and logistic regression. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.FindingsIn the quantitative results, there was a reduction in the time to the first feed (t(100) = ?11.32, p < 0.001) (M = 38.9, SE = 20.7) (M = 124.9, SE = 50.1) and the first breastfeed (t(100) = ?5.2, p < 0.001) (M = 53.2, SE = 82.5) (M = 277, SE = 295.8) with increased breastfeeding on discharge for women that had skin-to-skin contact at caesarean birth in comparison to those who did not receive skin-to-skin contact χ2(1) = 10.22, p < 0.05. In the qualitative results, women who had skin-to-skin contact during their caesarean birth had a positive experience with improved bonding and reported less anxiety and depression than their previous caesarean birth.ConclusionThis study provides evidence of the benefits of skin-to-skin contact during a caesarean birth.     

Seeking control in the midst of uncertainty: Women’s experiences of choosing mode of birth after caesarean

Problem

Clinical practice guidelines indicate that over 80% of women with a previous caesarean should be offered a planned vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), however only one third of eligible women choose to plan a VBAC. To support informed choices for birth after caesarean, it is necessary to understand the factors that influence women’s decision-making.

Preference for caesarean and attitudes toward birth in a Chilean sample of young adults

BackgroundLittle empirical research exists about what motivates birth mode preferences, and even less about this topic in Latin America, where obstetric interventions and caesareans are some of the highest worldwide.AimTo identify factors associated with caesarean preference among Chilean men and women who plan to have children and to inform childbirth education and informed consent procedures.MethodsAn online cross-sectional survey measuring attitudes toward birth was administered to graduate students at a large public university in Chile. Eligible students were under the age of 40 and had no children but intended to have children. Logistic regression modelling was used to determine which sociodemographic factors, knowledge and beliefs were associated with caesarean preference.FindingsAmong eligible students, 730 responded and 664 provided complete answers to the variables of interest. Respondents had a mean age of 28.8; 38% were male and 62% female. Positive attitude toward technological intervention (Odds Ratio 7.4, 95% Confidence Interval 3.9–14.0), high risk perception of vaginal birth (Odds Ratio 1.8, 95% Confidence Interval 1.1–2.8), family history of caesarean (Odds Ratio 1.9, 95% Confidence Interval 1.0–3.8) and high fear of birth (Odds Ratio 3.7, 95% Confidence Interval 2.0–6.8) were associated with caesarean preference.DiscussionPreference for caesarean birth was highly associated with positive attitudes toward technological intervention and may be related to a lack of knowledge about the realities of caesarean and vaginal birth.ConclusionsPatient-centered education on the relative benefits and risks of birth modes has the potential to influence preferences toward vaginal birth.     

What women want and why. Women's preferences for induction of labour or expectant management in late-term pregnancy

BackgroundBoth induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks are common management strategies in low-risk pregnancy since there is no consensus on the optimal timing of induction in late-term pregnancy for the prevention of adverse outcomes. Our aim was to explore maternal preference for either strategy and the influence on quality of life and maternal anxiety on this preference.MethodsObstetrical low-risk women with an uncomplicated pregnancy were eligible when they reached a gestational age of 41 weeks. They were asked to fill in questionnaires on quality of life (EQ6D) and anxiety (STAI-state). Reasons of women's preferences for either induction or expectant management were explored in a semi-structured questionnaire containing open ended questions.ResultsOf 782 invited women 604 (77.2%) responded. Induction at 41 weeks was preferred by 44.7% (270/604) women, 42.1% (254/604) preferred expectant management until 42 weeks, while 12.2% (74/604) of women did not have a preference. Women preferring induction reported significantly more problems regarding quality of life and were more anxious than women preferring expectant management (p < 0.001). Main reasons for preferring induction of labour were: “safe feeling” (41.2%), “pregnancy taking too long” (35.4%) and “knowing what to expect” (18.6%). For women preferring expectant management, the main reason was “wish to give birth as natural as possible” (80.3%).ConclusionWomen's preference for induction of labour or a policy of expectant management in late-term pregnancy is influenced by anxiety, quality of life problems (induction), the presence of a wish for natural birth (expectant management), and a variety of additional reasons. This variation in preferences and motivations suggests that there is room for shared decision making in the management of late-term pregnancy.     

Conceptual and ethical problems underpinning calls to abandon vaginal breech birth

The view that vaginal breech birth is unjustifiable due to neonatal safety concerns has resulted in continued calls for breech pregnancies to be managed via a policy of planned caesarean birth. Vaginal breech birth has of course always occurred, but women with term breech pregnancies who seek to have a vaginal birth often face coercive pressures to have a caesarean birth instead. In this paper I argue that even if there is population level evidence that vaginal birth is relatively riskier for the breech presenting fetus, implementing a policy of planned caesarean birth would essentially be an unjustified attempt at forced medical intervention upon women. Advocates of a policy of planned caesarean birth often conflate the acceptability of allocating participants to a treatment group (policy) within the context of a randomized controlled trial with the justifiability of doing that as part of individual health care. Calls for obstetricians to “abandon vaginal breech birth” mistakenly position vaginal breech birth itself as a form of medical intervention that can simply be removed as an option for women by obstetricians. In reality, abandoning vaginal breech birth would entail abandoning women by denying them access to healthcare options that are otherwise available to any woman having a vaginal birth.     

The experiential knowledge of migrant women about vulnerability during pregnancy: A woman-centred mixed-methods study

ProblemWithin maternity care policies and practice, pregnant migrant women are regarded as a vulnerable population.BackgroundWomen’s experiential knowledge is a key element of woman-centred care but is insufficiently addressed in midwifery practice and research that involves migrant women.AimTo examine if pregnant migrant women’s experiential knowledge of vulnerability corresponds with sets of criteria of vulnerability, and to explore how migrant women make sense of vulnerability during pregnancy.MethodsA sequential two-phased mixed-methods study, conducted in the Netherlands, integrating survey data of 89 pregnant migrant women and focus group data obtained from 25 migrant mothers - living in deprived areas according to the Dutch socio-economic index.ResultsCriteria associated with vulnerability were reported by 65.2% of the participants and 62.9% of the participants reported adverse childhood experiences. On a Visual Analogue Scale, ranging from 0 (not vulnerable) to 10 (very vulnerable), participants self-reported sense of vulnerability showed a mean score of 4.2 (±2.56). Women’s experiential knowledge of vulnerability significantly correlated with the mean sum score of clinical criteria of vulnerability (r .46, p .002) and with the mean sum score of adverse childhood experiences (r .48, p < .001). Five themes emerged from the focus group discussions: “Look beyond who you think I am and see and treat me for who I really am”, “Ownership of truth and knowledge”, “Don’t punish me for being honest”, “Projection of fear” and “Coping with labelling”.ConclusionPregnant migrant women’s experiential knowledge of vulnerability is congruent with the criteria. Calling upon experiential knowledge is an attribute of the humane woman-midwife relationship.