IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: Systematic review of qualitative studies

Author

Listed:
  • Carol Kingdon
  • Soo Downe
  • Ana Pilar Betran

Abstract

Objective: When medically indicated, caesarean section can prevent deaths and other serious complications in mothers and babies. Lack of access to caesarean section may result in increased maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. However, rising caesarean section rates globally suggest overuse in healthy women and babies, with consequent iatrogenic damage for women and babies, and adverse impacts on the sustainability of maternity care provision. To date, interventions to ensure that caesarean section is appropriately used have not reversed the upward trend in rates. Qualitative evidence has the potential to explain why and how interventions may or may not work in specific contexts. We aimed to establish stakeholders’ views on the barriers and facilitators to non-clinical interventions targeted at organizations, facilities and systems, to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. Methods: We undertook a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis using a five-stage modified, meta-ethnography approach. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMBASE and grey literature databases (Global Index Medicus, POPLINE, AJOL) using pre-defined terms. Inclusion criteria were qualitative and mixed-method studies, investigating any non-clinical intervention to reduce caesarean section, in any setting and language, published after 1984. Study quality was assessed prior to data extraction. Interpretive thematic synthesis was undertaken using a barriers and facilitators lens. Confidence in the resulting Summaries of Findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. Results: 8,219 studies were identified. 25 studies were included, from 17 countries, published between 1993–2016, encompassing the views of over 1,565 stakeholders. Nineteen Summary of Findings statements were derived. They mapped onto three distinct themes: Conclusions: Non-clinical interventions to reduce caesarean section are strongly mediated by organisational power differentials and stakeholder commitment. Barriers may be greatest where implementation plans contradict system and cultural norms. Protocol registration: PROSPERO: CRD42017059456

Suggested Citation

  • Carol Kingdon & Soo Downe & Ana Pilar Betran, 2018. "Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: Systematic review of qualitative studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-28, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203274
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203274
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203274&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203274?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0203274. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.