Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChapman, A
dc.contributor.authorNagle, C
dc.contributor.authorBick, D
dc.contributor.authorLindberg, R
dc.contributor.authorKent, B
dc.contributor.authorCalache, J
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, AM
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-04T13:34:17Z
dc.date.issued2019-12
dc.identifier.issn1471-2393
dc.identifier.issn1471-2393
dc.identifier.other206
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/15356
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity, yet rates continue to increase within most countries. Effective interventions are required to reduce the number of non-medically indicated CSs and improve outcomes for women and infants. This paper reports findings of a systematic review of literature related to maternity service organisational interventions that have a primary intention of improving CS rates. METHOD: A three-phase search strategy was implemented to identify studies utilising organisational interventions to improve CS rates in maternity services. The database search (including Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2017. Reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies were also searched. Primary outcomes were overall, planned, and unplanned CS rates. Secondary outcomes included a suite of birth outcomes. A series of meta-analyses were performed in RevMan, separated by type of organisational intervention and outcome of interest. Summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented as the effect measure. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review, nine of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Results indicated that, compared with women allocated to usual care, women allocated to midwife-led models of care implemented across pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postnatal period were, on average, less likely to experience CS (overall) (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96), planned CS (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), and episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). Narratively, audit and feedback, and a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, were identified as interventions that have potential to reduce CS rates. CONCLUSION: Maternity service leaders should consider the adoption of midwife-led models of care across the maternity episode within their organisations, particularly for women classified as low-risk. Additional studies are required that utilise either audit and feedback, or a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, to facilitate the quantification of intervention effects within future reviews. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016039458 ; prospectively registered.

dc.format.extent206-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectCaesarean section
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.subjectOrganisational interventions
dc.subjectChildbirth
dc.subjectMaternity service
dc.subjectMidwife-led care
dc.titleMaternity service organisational interventions that aim to reduce caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analyses
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMeta-Analysis
dc.typeSystematic Review
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000475539100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume19
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12884-019-2351-2
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-06-04
dc.rights.embargodate2020-2-6
dc.identifier.eissn1471-2393
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s12884-019-2351-2
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-12
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV