Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licenseDudley, L.Kettle, ChristineWaterfield, JackieIsmail, Khaled M. K.2018-06-292018-06-292017-02-10Dudley, L., Kettle, C., Waterfield, J. & Ismail, K. (2017) Perineal resuturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound (PREVIEW): a nested qualitative study. BMJ Open, 7(2):e0130082044-6055https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013008https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/5266Objective: To explore women's lived experiences of a dehisced perineal wound following childbirth and how they felt participating in a pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design: A nested qualitative study using semistructured interviews, underpinned by descriptive phenomenology. Participants and setting: A purposive sample of six women at 6-9 months postnatal who participated in the RCT were interviewed in their own homes. Results: Following Giorgi's analytical framework the verbatim transcripts were analysed for key themes. Women's lived experiences revealed 4 emerging themes: (1) Physical impact, with sub-themes focusing upon avoiding infection, perineal pain and the impact of the wound dehiscence upon daily activities; (2) Psychosocial impact, with sub-themes of denial, sense of failure or self-blame, fear, isolation and altered body image; (3) Sexual impact; and (4) Satisfaction with wound healing. A fifth theme 'participating in the RCT' was 'a priori' with sub-themes centred upon understanding the randomisation process, completing the trial questionnaires, attending for hospital appointments and acceptability of the treatment options. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to grant women the opportunity to voice their personal experiences of a dehisced perineal wound and their views on the management offered. The powerful testimonies presented disclose the extent of morbidity experienced while also revealing a strong preference for a treatment option.e013008http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/articlehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013008