IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v143y2015icp232-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fear, blame and transparency: Obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting

Author

Listed:
  • Litorp, Helena
  • Mgaya, Andrew
  • Mbekenga, Columba K.
  • Kidanto, Hussein L.
  • Johnsdotter, Sara
  • Essén, Birgitta

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been growing attention to the overuse of caesarean section (CS) globally. In light of a high CS rate at a university hospital in Tanzania, we aimed to explore obstetric caregivers' rationales for their hospital's CS rate to identify factors that might cause CS overuse. After participant observations, we performed 22 semi-structured individual in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions with 5–6 caregivers in each. Respondents were consultants, specialists, residents, and midwives. The study relied on a framework of naturalistic inquiry and we analyzed data using thematic analysis. As a conceptual framework, we situated our findings in the discussion of how transparency and auditing can induce behavioral change and have unintended effects. Caregivers had divergent opinions on whether the hospital's CS rate was a problem or not, but most thought that there was an overuse of CS. All caregivers rationalized the high CS rate by referring to circumstances outside their control. In private practice, some stated they were affected by the economic compensation for CS, while others argued that unnecessary CSs were due to maternal demand. Residents often missed support from their senior colleagues when making decisions, and felt that midwives pushed them to perform CSs. Many caregivers stated that their fear of blame from colleagues and management in case of poor outcomes made them advocate for, or perform, CSs on doubtful indications. In order to lower CS rates, caregivers must acknowledge their roles as decision-makers, and strive to minimize unnecessary CSs. Although auditing and transparency are important to improve patient safety, they must be used with sensitivity regarding any unintended or counterproductive effects they might have.

Suggested Citation

  • Litorp, Helena & Mgaya, Andrew & Mbekenga, Columba K. & Kidanto, Hussein L. & Johnsdotter, Sara & Essén, Birgitta, 2015. "Fear, blame and transparency: Obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 232-240.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:143:y:2015:i:c:p:232-240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615301088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    3. McGivern, Gerry & Fischer, Michael D., 2012. "Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 289-296.
    4. Hopkins, Kristine, 2000. "Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 725-740, September.
    5. Mizrahi, Terry, 1984. "Managing medical mistakes: Ideology, insularity and accountability among internists-in-training," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 135-146, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara Rivenes Lafontan & Johanne Sundby & Hussein L. Kidanto & Columba K. Mbekenga & Hege L. Ersdal, 2018. "Acquiring Knowledge about the Use of a Newly Developed Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitor: A Qualitative Study Among Birth Attendants in Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Recio Alcaide, Adela & Arranz, José M., 2022. "An impact evaluation of the strategy for normal birth care on caesarean section rates and perinatal mortality in Spain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 24-34.
    3. Christou, Aliki & Alam, Ashraful & Hofiani, Sayed Murtaza Sadat & Rasooly, Mohammad Hafiz & Mubasher, Adela & Rashidi, Mohammad Khakerah & Dibley, Michael J. & Raynes-Greenow, Camille, 2019. "How community and healthcare provider perceptions, practices and experiences influence reporting, disclosure and data collection on stillbirth: Findings of a qualitative study in Afghanistan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Lange, Isabelle L. & Kanhonou, Lydie & Goufodji, Sourou & Ronsmans, Carine & Filippi, Véronique, 2016. "The costs of ‘free’: Experiences of facility-based childbirth after Benin's caesarean section exemption policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 53-62.
    5. Smith-Oka, Vania & Flores, Brenda, 2022. "Competing Narratives: Examining Obstetricians’ Decision-Making Regarding Indications for Cesarean Sections and Abdominal Incisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fischer, Michael Daniel & Ferlie, Ewan, 2013. "Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 30-49.
    2. Spendlove, Zoey, 2018. "Medical revalidation as professional regulatory reform: Challenging the power of enforceable trust in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 64-71.
    3. Ovretveit, John, 2009. "The contribution of new social science research to patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1780-1783, December.
    4. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    5. Kang, Minah & Reich, Michael R., 2014. "Between credit claiming and blame avoidance: The changing politics of priority-setting for Korea's National Health Insurance System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 9-17.
    6. Heald, David & Steel, David, 2018. "The governance of public bodies in times of austerity," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 149-160.
    7. Cooper, Christine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2021. "Hillsborough: The fight for accountability," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    8. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    9. Steen, Riana & Ferreira, Pedro, 2020. "Resilient flood-risk management at the municipal level through the lens of the Functional Resonance Analysis Model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    10. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2021. "EU Transparency as ‘Documents’: Still Fit for Purpose?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 292-295.
    11. Nicolini, Davide & Waring, Justin & Mengis, Jeanne, 2011. "Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 217-225, July.
    12. Shruti Kashyap & Einar Iveroth, 2021. "Transparency and accountability influences of regulation on risk control: the case of a Swedish bank," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(2), pages 475-508, June.
    13. Joanna Vince, 2015. "Integrated policy approaches and policy failure: the case of Australia’s Oceans Policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 159-180, June.
    14. McGivern, Gerry & Nzinga, Jacinta & English, Mike, 2017. "‘Pastoral practices’ for quality improvement in a Kenyan clinical network," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 115-122.
    15. Busuioc, E. M. & Lodge, Martin, 2017. "Reputation and accountability relationships: managing accountability expectations through reputation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Daskalopoulou, Athanasia & Palmer, Mark, 2021. "Persistent institutional breaches: Technology use in healthcare work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    17. Lin, Katherine Y. & Anspach, Renee R. & Crawford, Brett & Parnami, Sonali & Fuhrel-Forbis, Andrea & De Vries, Raymond G., 2014. "What must I do to succeed?: Narratives from the US premedical experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 98-105.
    18. Kabakian-Khasholian, Tamar & Kaddour, Afamia & DeJong, Jocelyn & Shayboub, Rawan & Nassar, Anwar, 2007. "The policy environment encouraging C-section in Lebanon," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 37-49, September.
    19. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    20. Le Anh Nguyen Long & Megan Foster & Gwen Arnold, 2019. "The impact of stakeholder engagement on local policy decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 549-571, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:143:y:2015:i:c:p:232-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.