Maternal perceptions of cesarean birth care: A qualitative study to inform ERAS guideline development.

BACKGROUND: Cesarean birth (CB) is the most common inpatient surgical procedure, and until recently, there were no internationally accepted, standardized clinical guidelines available. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS® ) program aims to improve outcomes through the development of international guidelines (IGs). As an ERAS IG for CB was being developed, this qualitative study was conducted to explore and consolidate women's experiences with CB. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to assess the patient experience with current evidence-based CB protocols across operative phases. Twelve women who experienced CB at a single center in Canada were interviewed using an open-ended, semi-structured interview guide at six weeks postpartum. Two researchers coded the emerging themes separately and compared findings. RESULTS: Women described feeling informed, but felt they did not have a choice. Presurgery, women wanted more information about the risks of CB. Preoperatively, women expressed confusion with the procedures, but felt informed about local anesthesia and thermoregulation. Post-CB, women felt informed about pain and nausea control; however, urinary catheter removal was delayed when compared to the ERAS recommendations. Information about postpartum infant care was not well communicated, as many women were uninformed about delayed cord clamping and infant thermoregulation. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study provides opportunities to improve communication, the patient-practitioner relationship, and the overall satisfaction throughout the CB process. The findings support the implementation of patient decision aids and training with the shared decision model. The improved procedures recommended in the ERAS IG for CB have the potential to deliver significant improvements to patient care and patient satisfaction.

Exploring the unanticipated effects of multi-sectoral partnerships in chronic disease prevention.

Multi-sectoral partnerships are important parts of many public health efforts to address chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Despite the potential value of multi-sectoral approaches, uncertainty exists regarding their effects on individuals, organizations, communities and populations. This article reports on a study that examined the unanticipated effects (both positive and negative) of the Public Health Agency of Canada's (the Agency) Multi-sectoral Partnerships initiative, which supports more than 30 multi-sectoral partnership projects across Canada. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff from organizations participating in 3 diverse partnership projects as part of the Agency's multi-sectoral partnerships initiative. Multiple unanticipated effects were identified and organized into 4 themes: (1) insights about the flexibility and responsiveness of government; (2) access to new and valuable resources (people, skills, expertise); (3) opportunity to build new capacities; and (4) understanding realistic timelines for partnership activities and outcomes. While these effects were unanticipated for study participants, they resonate with insights from the literature on multi-sectoral partnerships. These results raise a number of questions for consideration as partnership initiatives continue to evolve, including the types of training that partners might need; the individual and organizational capacities required for partnership approaches; and the evaluation techniques that might be most useful to capture the non-linear effects of partnership approaches.