Caesarean section on maternal request: a qualitative study of conflicts related to shared decision-making and person-centred care in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Today, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making. METHODS: A qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription. RESULTS: In the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman's current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman's sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process). CONCLUSIONS: The complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.

Person-centered care is today a widespread approach, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). This study examines Swedish health professionals' views on CSMR. Interviews with 12 health professionals reveal conflicts between CSMR and key aspects of person-centered care, in particular shared decision-making. While professionals acknowledge women's autonomy, they question CSMR without medical need. Concerns include for example treatment quality and patient safety, and avoiding treatments that harm others. The Swedish context, balancing collective solutions with individualized care, complicates decision-making. Unlike countries with more private healthcare, where CSMR support might be higher, Swedish health professionals emphasize shared decision-making despite viewing the mode of delivery as primarily a professional decision. This study sheds light on the challenges in integrating CSMR into person-centered care frameworks.

Guideline documents on caesarean section on maternal request in Sweden: varying usability with a restrictive approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, studies illustrate different approaches among health care professionals to decision making about caesarean section (CS) and that attitudes regarding the extent to which a CS on maternal request (CSMR) can be granted vary significantly, both between professionals and countries. Absence of proper regulatory frameworks is one potential explanation for high CSMR rates in some countries, but overall, it is unclear how recommendations and guidelines on CSMR relate to CSMR rates. In Sweden, CSMR rates are low by international comparison, but statistics show that the extent to which maternity clinics perform CSMR vary among Sweden's 21 self-governing regions. These regions are responsible for funding and delivery of healthcare, while national guidelines provide guidance for the professions throughout the country; however, they are not mandatory. To further understand considerations for CSMR requests and existing practice variations, the aim was to analyse guideline documents on CSMR at all local maternity clinics in Sweden. METHODS: All 43 maternity clinics in Sweden were contacted and asked for any guideline documents regarding CSMR. All clinics replied, enabling a total investigation. We used a combined deductive and inductive design, using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. RESULTS: Overall, 32 maternity clinics reported guideline documents and 11 denied having any. Among those reporting no guideline documents, one referred to using national guideline document. Based on the Framework method, four theme categories were identified: CSMR is treated as a matter of fear of birth (FOB); How important factors are weighted in the decision-making is unclear; Birth contracts are offered in some regions; and The post-partum care is related to FOB rather than CSMR. CONCLUSION: In order to offer women who request CS equal and just care, there is a pressing need to either implement current national guideline document at all maternity clinics or rewrite the guideline documents to enable clinics to adopt a structured approach. The emphasis must be placed on exploring the reasons behind the request and providing unbiased information and support. Our results contribute to the ongoing discussion about CSMR and lay a foundation for further research in which professionals, as well as stakeholders and both women planning pregnancy and pregnant women, can give their views on this issue.

Elective caesarean section on maternal request prior to 39 gestational weeks and childhood psychopathology: a birth cohort study in China.

BACKGROUND: The recommendation of non-indicated caesarean section (CS) after 39 gestational weeks has been announced based on evidence of maternal and infant physiological effects. The potential psychological risks have not been acknowledged. This study aims to investigate emotional and behavioral problems in pre-school children born with elective CS (ECS) on maternal request prior to 39 weeks. METHODS: Pregnant women within 12 gestational weeks between November 2008 and October 2010 were invited to participate in the China-Anhui Birth Cohort Study (C-ABCS). They were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire respectively in 1st and 3rd trimester of pregnancy to collect basic maternal characteristics. Pregnant complications and delivery modes were abstracted from medical notes. Their singleton live births were followed up at preschool age. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQ) were completed by parents to assess children's emotional and behavioral problems. A total of 3319 mother-child pairs were put into the final analysis. Descriptive analysis and binary logistic regression analysis were used to assess the impact of delivery modes on abnormalities in SDQ dimensions at various gestational ages. RESULTS: The prevalence of ECS on maternal request prior to 39 weeks, at 39-40 weeks, and after 41 weeks was 16.6, 23.7 and 15.9%, respectively. Compared with those born vaginally, children born with ECS on maternal request were more likely to have total difficult problems (RR 1.519, 95% confidence interval 1.077 to 2.142). ECS on maternal request was the independent predictor of emotional problems (3.479, 1.676 to 7.222) and total difficult problems (2.172, 1.175 to 4.016) in children born prior to 39 gestational weeks. CONCLUSION: Children delivered by ECS on maternal request have an increased risk to have emotional and behavioral problems prior to 39 gestational weeks at preschool age. The potential psychological implication prior to 39 weeks has been added to the roster of impacts of ECS on maternal request. Further research is needed to probe the potential biological mechanisms.

Elective Caesarean section on maternal request in Germany: factors affecting decision making concerning mode of delivery.

PURPOSE: To investigate sociopsychological factors of women undergoing a caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). METHODS: Twenty-eight women who underwent CSMR and 29 women with vaginal delivery (VD) filled in standardized questionnaires concerning psychological burden (SCL-R 90), fear of childbirth (W-DEQ, STAI), personality structure (HEXACO-Pi-R) and social support (F-SozU) as well as one questionnaire assessing potential factors influencing their mode of delivery. RESULTS: Women with CSMR were older (36.5 ± 5.4 vs. 30.6 ± 5.2 years; p < 0.001) and suffered more from fear of childbirth (W-DEQ 4.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.2; p = 0.041), concerns for their child (W-DEQ 2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 0.7; p = 0.026) and appraised the birth less negative (W-DEQ 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 1.1; p = 0.008). The majority of parturients had chosen their preferred mode of delivery before pregnancy (CS 61% vs. VD 82%, p = 0.328). In the decision-making process for the mode of delivery, the advice of the partner (85 and 90%) played an important role. 82% of the women who delivered via CSMR did not regret the decision for this mode of delivery. CONCLUSION: Women who underwent CS had higher fear of childbirth and appraised the birth less negative. The majority did not regret the decision for the CS and would even choose this mode of delivery for their next pregnancy. Although the partner and the physician seem to be important in the decision process for of the mode of delivery, reasons for the choice for CSMR appear to be multifactorial.