Background
Method
Reference | Aim | Method | Data collection Setting | Quality assessment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Theoretical | |||
Discipline | perspective | |||
2. Emmet, Shaw, Montgomery, Murphy, Nursing | To explore women's experiences of decision-making about mode of delivery after previous CS | Qualitative study | 21 women with a previous CS | M:36 |
Framework approach | 12 planned a VBAC, 9 planned a CS | |||
The participants home | ||||
Two city hospitals England and Scotland | ||||
13. McGrath, Phillips, Vaughan | To explore the decision-process from the mothers' perspective with regard to subsequent birth choice for women who had previously been delivered by CS | Descriptive phenomenology | 4 women who had a VBAC | M:34 |
Nursing | Van Manen | Locations of the participants' choice 6-8 weeks post partum | ||
Australia | ||||
18. Phillips, McGrath, Vaughan | The reasons motivating women to try for a VBAC from the perspective of women | Descriptive phenomenology | 4 women who had a VBAC | M:35 |
Nursing | Van Manen | Locations of the participants’ choice 6-8 weeks post partum | ||
Australia | ||||
19. Fenwick, Gamble Hauck Midwifery | Explore and describe the childbirth expectations knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of women who have experienced a CS and would prefer a VBAC in subsequent pregnancy | Thematic analysis | 35 women recruited from 157 respondents; 24 who attempted a vaginal birth and 11 who would choose this in a subsequent pregnancy | M:36 |
Australia | ||||
20. Meddings, Phipps | The lived experience of women who elected to attempt a vaginal birth following a previous CS | Phenomenological method | 8 women recruited via community | M:31 |
Haith-Cooper, Haigh Nursing | Pregnancy 34 weeks and 6 weeks after birth | |||
Participants' own home UK | ||||
29. McGrath, Phillips | The focus is on women who valued a vaginal birth who delivered by CS | Descriptive phenomenology | 8 women who valued a vaginal delivery but who delivered by CS | M:34 |
Vaughan | Locations of the participants' choice | |||
Nursing | 6-8 weeks post partum | |||
Australia | ||||
30. Goodhall, McVittie, | Explore mother's perceptions of the influence of health professionals (GP, midwives, and consultants) on decisions as to mode of delivery of second children, following a previous CS. | Interpretative phenomenology | 10 pregnant women (medium gestation of 32 weeks) recruited via Edinburgh | M:32 |
Magil | ||||
Psychology | National Childbirth Trust and personal contacts | |||
Interviewee's home | ||||
UK | ||||
31. Ridley, Davis | Discover what influences women in the decision to deliver via VBAC | Descriptive qualitative method | 4 women delivered via VBAC | M:35 |
Bright, Sinclair | 2-4 months post partum | |||
Nursing | Postpartum unit in a hospital | |||
US |
Sampling, inclusion and exclusion criteria
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
| |
1. | Statement of which author/s conducted the interview or focus group* |
2. | List of the researchers’ credentials, e.g., PhD, MD* |
3. | Statement of their occupation at the time of the study* |
4. | Indication of the gender of the researcher(s)* |
5. | Statement of relevant experience or training that researcher(s) had* |
6. | Statement of any relationship established between participants and researchers prior to study start* |
7. | Statement of participant knowledge of the interviewer* |
8. | Evidence of self-awareness/insight in the characteristics reported about the interviewer/facilitator: e.g., assumptions, bias, reasons for or interest in the research topic* |
Domain 2: Scope and purpose*
| |
9. | Link between research and existing knowledge demonstrated* |
10. | A clear aim for the study was stated* |
Domain 3: study design
| |
11. | A clear methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis* |
12. | Ethical committee approval granted* |
13. | Documentation of how autonomy, consent, confidentiality etc. were managed* |
14. | Description of how participants were selected: e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball* |
15. | Description of method of approach e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail/email* |
16. | Sample size: number of participants in the study declared* |
17. | Number of people who refused to participate or dropped out given, with reasons* |
18. | Description of setting of data collection e.g. home, clinic, workplace* |
19. | Declaration of presence of non-participants, if applicable* |
20. | Description of important characteristics of the sample e.g., demographic data, date data collected* |
21. | Description of interview guide given e.g., questions, prompts, guides, and any pilot testing* |
22. | Number of repeat interviews given, if applicable* |
23. | Statements of audio/visual recording or not* |
24. | Statements of whether or not fields notes were used* |
25. | Duration of interviews or focus group given* |
26. | Evidence provided that the data reached saturation or discussion/rationale if they did not* |
27. | Statements of whether or not transcripts were returned to participants for comment and/or correction* |
Domain 4: analysis and findings
| |
28. | Number of data coders given/evidence of more than one researcher involved* |
29. | Description provided of the coding tree/discussion of how coding system evolved* |
30. | Statement of whether themes were identified in advance or derived from the data* |
31. | Statement of manual analysis, or the software that was used to manage the data* |
32. | Statement of whether or not participants provided feedback on the findings* |
33. | Statements of whether or not deviant data were sought, if applicable* |
34. | Statement of whether or not researchers “dwelt with the data”, interrogating if for alternative explanations of phenomena* |
35. | Sufficient discussion of research processes such that others can follow ‘decision trail’* |
36. | Identified participant quotations (e.g. by participant number) presented to illustrate the themes/findings* |
37. | Consistency seen between the data presented in the findings* |
38. | Major themes clearly presented in the findings* |
39. | Description given of diverse cases or minor themes* |
40. | The results are presented with an essence (phenomenology), main interpretation (hermeneutics), theory/main concepts (grounded theory), main theme (content analysis)* |
41. | Evidence of systematic location and inclusion of literature and theory to contextualize findings* |
Domain 5: Relevance and transferability
| |
42. | Clearly resonates with other knowledge and experience* |
43. | Provides new insights and increases understanding* |
44. | Limitations/weaknesses clearly outlined* |
45. | Further directions for investigation outlined* |
Results
Sub-themes | Themes | Articles |
---|---|---|
In relation to the women themselves | Own strong responsibility for giving birth vaginally | 13,18,19,29,30 |
In relation to information | 2,13,18,19,29,30 | |
In relation to health-professionals | 13,18,19 | |
To have to confront serious risks mediated by health-professionals | Vaginal birth after CS is a risky project | 2,13,18,19,29,30,31 |
Lack of information about the benefits of vaginal birth | 2,13,30 | |
Not supported if you want a VBAC | 2,13,19,30 | |
Good for the baby and the mother- baby relationship | Vaginal birth has several positive aspects mainly described by women | 2,18,19,20,29,30,31 |
A meaningful experience of importance for them as women | 18,19,20,29,30,31 | |
An easier birth in relation to recovery afterwards | 2,19,20,31 | |
Some health professionals are pro VBAC | 2,13,20,29,31 | |
Not being informed enough | To be involved in decision about mode of delivery is hard and important | 2,13,19,20,31 |
Conflicting information | 2,18,19,20,29,30,31 | |
Important to have a choice | 2,19,20,29,31 | |
Uncertainty in relation to choice | 2,19,20,29,31 | |
Information/support from others not the hospital | 2,13,18,19,29,31 | |
Support from professionals | 2,13,29,30,31 | |
Experiences from the last birth influence the choice | 2,19,29,30,31 |