IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v309y2022ics0277953622005445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing Narratives: Examining Obstetricians’ Decision-Making Regarding Indications for Cesarean Sections and Abdominal Incisions

Author

Listed:
  • Smith-Oka, Vania
  • Flores, Brenda

Abstract

This article examines the decision-making process among obstetric residents in a public maternity hospital in Mexico where the percentage of cesareans and of classical vertical incisions (rather than the more common transverse incision) were both higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization or national standards. Data were collected in 2018 through free list methodology (listing items that fall within a particular cultural domain or category) and semi-structured interviews with senior obstetric residents. Analysis revealed two competing narratives at work that influenced decision-making regarding the use of cesareans and incision type: though participants emphasized the importance of clinical indications, their reported decisions seemed to rely more heavily on subjective and non-clinical factors. Factors such as patient “type” and perceived pressure from patients influenced obstetricians’ decisions to perform cesareans. Decisions about performing incision-type seemed based on a combination of clinical factors, surgical abilities, and structural pressures. The data illustrate the nuanced and contradictory elements within medical decision-making ideas and behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:309:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622005445
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622005445
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115238?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. Bhatia, M. & Dwivedi, L.K. & Banerjee, K. & Dixit, P., 2020. "An epidemic of avoidable caesarean deliveries in the private sector in India: Is physician-induced demand at play?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Hopkins, Kristine, 2000. "Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 725-740, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Shayesteh Hajizadeh & Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani & Masoumeh Simbar & Farshad Farzadfar, 2016. "Effects of Recruiting Midwives into a Family Physician Program on Women's Awareness and Preference for Mode of Delivery and Caesarean Section Rates in Rural Areas of Kurdistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Guccio, C. & Lisi, D., 2014. "Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services: Theory and evidence from the Italian hospital sector," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Luisa Masciullo & Luciano Petruzziello & Giuseppina Perrone & Francesco Pecorini & Caterina Remiddi & Paola Galoppi & Roberto Brunelli, 2020. "Caesarean Section on Maternal Request: An Italian Comparative Study on Patients’ Characteristics, Pregnancy Outcomes and Guidelines Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Hopkins, Kristine & Maria Barbosa, Regina & Riva Knauth, Daniela & Potter, Joseph E., 2005. "The impact of health care providers on female sterilization among HIV-positive women in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 541-554, August.
    10. Guccio, Calogero & Lisi, Domenico, 2016. "Thus do all. Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services in a highly decentralized healthcare system," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    11. 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.
    12. Leone, Tiziana & Padmadas, Sabu S. & Matthews, Zoë, 2008. "Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: An analysis of six countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1236-1246, October.
    13. Iffath Unissa Syed, 2019. "In Biomedicine, Thin Is Still In: Obesity Surveillance among Racialized, (Im)migrant, and Female Bodies," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-14, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Bryant, Joanne & Porter, Maree & Tracy, Sally K. & Sullivan, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1192-1201, September.
    16. Mohammad Rifat Haider & Mohammad Masudur Rahman & Md Moinuddin & Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman & Shakil Ahmed & M Mahmud Khan, 2018. "Ever-increasing Caesarean section and its economic burden in Bangladesh," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Leone, Tiziana, 2014. "Demand and supply factors affecting the rising overmedicalization of birth in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58646, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:309:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622005445. 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.