Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGoodall, Karen
dc.contributor.authorMagill, Michelle
dc.contributor.authorMcVittie, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T21:30:42Z
dc.date.available2018-06-29T21:30:42Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifierER111
dc.identifier.citationGoodall, K., Magill, M. & McVittie, C. (2009) Birth choice following primary caesarean section : mothers' perceptions of the influence of health professionals on decision-making, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, vol. 27, , pp. Apr-14,
dc.identifier.issn0264-6838
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646830801918430
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/111
dc.description.abstractThis study explored mothers' perceptions of the influences of health professionals (GPs, midwives and consultants) on decisions as to mode of delivery of second children, following a previous caesarean section (CS). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 pregnant women (31-40 years), expecting a second child following a first delivery by caesarean section (20-40 weeks gestation). Interpretative phenomenological analysis revealed four themes accounting for participants' understandings of relevant influences. Participants regarded themselves as (1) lacking relevant knowledge to make an informed choice, (2) obtaining probabilistic information, and (3) receiving latent communication from health professionals regarding choice of mode of delivery. Their perceived response was (4) to relinquish control over the mode of second delivery to the health professionals involved.
dc.format.extentApr-14
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
dc.subjectdecision-making
dc.subjecthealthcare professionals
dc.subjectbirth choice
dc.subjectcaesarean section
dc.subjectvbac
dc.titleBirth choice following primary caesarean section : mothers' perceptions of the influence of health professionals on decision-making
dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightsrestricted
dc.description.facultydiv_PaS
dc.description.referencetextABITOL, MM., CASTILLO, I., TAYLOR, U.B., ROCHELSON, B.L., SCHMOYS, S, & MONHEIT, A.G. (1993). Vaginal birth after caesarean section: the patients' point of view. American Family Physician, 47, 129-134. BEISECKER, A.E., & BEISECKER, T.D. (1990). Patient information-seeking behaviours when communicating with doctors. Medical Care, 28, 19-28. CAHILL, A.G., STAMILIO, D.M., ODIBO, A.O., PEIPERT, J.F., RATCLIFF, S.J., STEVENS, E.J.,SAMMEL, M.D. & MACONES, G.A. (2006). Is vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat caesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 195, 1143-47. CEGALA, D.J. (1997). A study of doctors' and patients' communication during a primary care consultation: Implications for communication training. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 169-194. CHARMAZ, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London. Sage. EDWARDS, A. (2004). Flexible rather than standardised approaches to communicating risks in health care. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 13, 169-17 EDWARDS, A., ELWYN, G., COVEY, J., MATTHEWS, E. & PILL, R. (2001). Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of framing- and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 61-82. FENWICK, J., GAMBLE, J. & MAWSON, J. (2003). Women's experiences of Caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean: A birthrites initiative. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 9 (1): 10-17. FRASER, W., MAUNSELL, E., HODNETT, E., MOUTQUIN, J.-M. (1997). Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after caesarean section education and support program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 176: 419-25. GLASER, B.G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York. Aldine. HOREY, D., WEAVER, J. & RUSSELL, H. (2004). Information for pregnant women about caesarean birth. Cochrane database Systematic Review (1): CD003858. INFORMATION CENTRE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE, (2006.) NHS maternity statistics, England 2004-5. London: Information Centre. IRVINE, L. M., & SHAW, R. W. (2001). Trial of scar or elective repeat caesarean section at maternal request. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 21(5), 463-467. ISD SCOTLAND (Information Services Division of the NHS in Scotland) (2006) National Statistics release. Available at http://www.isdscotland.org/births. Accessed on 25/10/07. LAUER, J. A. & BETRAN, A.P. (2007). Decision aids for women with a previous caesarean section. British Medical Journal, 334, 1281-1282. LLOYD, A. (2001). The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Qualitative Health Care, 10 (Suppl I):il4-il8. MACONES, G.A. & PEIPERT, J., NELSON, D. B., ODIBO, A., STEVENS, E.J., STAMILIO, D.M., PARE, E., ELOVITZ, M., SCISCIONE, A., SAMMEL, M.D., & RATCLIFFE, S.J. (2005). Maternal complications with vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a multicenter study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193, 1656-1662. MCCLAIN, C.S. (1990). The making of a medical tradition: Vaginal birth after caesarean. Social Sciences and Medicine, 31, 2, 203-210. MCCLAIN, C.S. (1985). Why women choose trial of labour or repeat cesarean section. The Journal of Family Practice, 21, 3, 210-216. MEDDINGS, F., MACVANE PHIPPS, HAITH-COOPER, M. & HAIGH, J. (2006). Vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): exploring women's perceptions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 160-167. MONTGOMERY, A.A., EMMETT, C.L., FAHEY, T., JONES, C., RICKETTS, I.., PATEL, R.R., PETERS, T.J., & MURPHY, D.J. (2007). Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334; 1305- doi: 10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (2004). Clinical Guideline 13: Caesarean Section. London: NICE. NEUHAS, W., BAUERSCHMITZ, G., GOHING, U., & SCHMIDT, T. (2001). The risk of rupture of the uterus: An analysis of 1086 births after previous caesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 21(3), 232-235. ONG, L. M. L., DEHAES, J.C. J. M., HOOS, A. M. & LAMMES, F. B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 903-918. PALING, J. (2003). Strategies to help patients understand risks. British Medical Journal, 327,745-8. RIDLEY, R.T., DAVIS, P.A., BRIGHT, J.H., & SINCLAIR, D. (2002). What influences a woman to choose vaginal birth after caesarean? Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (6):665-72. ROTER, D.L. & FRANKEL, R. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 1097-1103. SHORTEN, A., SHORTEN, B., KEOGH, J. WEST, S., MORRIS, J. (2005). Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after caesarean. Birth, 32, 252-261. SINGH, T., JUSTIN, C.W., & HALOOB, R.K. (2004). An audit of trends of vaginal delivery after one previous caesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 24(2), 135-138. SMITH, J., & OSBORN, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Eds.), Qualitative psychology (pp. 51-80). London: Sage. SMITH G.C., PELL J.P., PASUPATHY D. & DOBBIE, R. (2004). Factors predisposing to perinatal death related to uterine rupture during attempted vaginal birth after caesarean section: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 329: 375-7. STAPLETON, H., KIRKHAM, M. & THOMAS, G. (2002). Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. British Medical Journal, 324, 639. THOMAS, J. & PARANJOTHY, S. (2001). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press. WILLIG, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham. Open University Press. ZIB, M., LIM, L. & WALTERS, W.A. (1999). Symptoms during normal pregnancy: a prospective controlled study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 39(4), 401-10.
dc.description.volume27
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi:10.1080/02646830801918430
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.eprintid111
rioxxterms.typearticle
qmu.authorMcVittie, Chris
qmu.authorGoodall, Karen
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record