提供者对剖宫产后阴道分娩的看法:定性系统综述。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Antita Kanjanakaew, Atchareya Jiramanee, Manassawee Srimoragot
{"title":"提供者对剖宫产后阴道分娩的看法:定性系统综述。","authors":"Antita Kanjanakaew, Atchareya Jiramanee, Manassawee Srimoragot","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06921-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Birth (VBAC) is a birth mode recommended for reducing repeat cesarean which potentially contributes to adverse outcomes. However, VBAC is not normally practiced in some countries. Providers are an important part of the decision-making process on modes of birth among pregnant individuals. Providers' perspective on VBAC can influence whether they support or avoid conducting VBAC. This review aimed to explore providers' perspective on VBAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The comprehensive search was conducted from six databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google scholar. The studies published in English between 2013 and 2023 were review. The Medical Subject Heading terms for VBAC and perspective were used to search. The eligible studies were selected by the PRISMA flow chart. The initial search yielded 558 articles. After excluding duplicates, articles not retrieved for full-text, and not meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles were recruited. Quality appraisal of the studies was performed by the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The meta-aggregation approach was applied to synthesize the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight qualitative articles were included in this review, and six themes were developed including (1) different recognition of VBAC, (2) differences of willingness level of conducting Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) (the approach attempting to have VBAC), (3) skills and resources needed when performing TOLAC, (4) protocol for recruiting candidacy and TOLAC management, (5) final decision making on VBAC, and (6) onset and duration of providing TOLAC information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Providers play an important role in influencing individuals' decision on modes of birth. Providers' positive recognition and willingness of conducting TOLAC potentially impact successful VBAC rate. However, the lawsuit caused by adverse outcomes from TOLAC/VBAC is a main reason for choosing repeat cesarean.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number of this systematic review: CRD42023427662.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Antita Kanjanakaew, Atchareya Jiramanee, Manassawee Srimoragot\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12884-024-06921-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Birth (VBAC) is a birth mode recommended for reducing repeat cesarean which potentially contributes to adverse outcomes. However, VBAC is not normally practiced in some countries. Providers are an important part of the decision-making process on modes of birth among pregnant individuals. Providers' perspective on VBAC can influence whether they support or avoid conducting VBAC. This review aimed to explore providers' perspective on VBAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The comprehensive search was conducted from six databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google scholar. The studies published in English between 2013 and 2023 were review. The Medical Subject Heading terms for VBAC and perspective were used to search. The eligible studies were selected by the PRISMA flow chart. The initial search yielded 558 articles. After excluding duplicates, articles not retrieved for full-text, and not meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles were recruited. Quality appraisal of the studies was performed by the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The meta-aggregation approach was applied to synthesize the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight qualitative articles were included in this review, and six themes were developed including (1) different recognition of VBAC, (2) differences of willingness level of conducting Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) (the approach attempting to have VBAC), (3) skills and resources needed when performing TOLAC, (4) protocol for recruiting candidacy and TOLAC management, (5) final decision making on VBAC, and (6) onset and duration of providing TOLAC information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Providers play an important role in influencing individuals' decision on modes of birth. Providers' positive recognition and willingness of conducting TOLAC potentially impact successful VBAC rate. However, the lawsuit caused by adverse outcomes from TOLAC/VBAC is a main reason for choosing repeat cesarean.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number of this systematic review: CRD42023427662.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542202/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06921-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06921-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:剖腹产后阴道分娩(VBAC)是一种推荐的分娩方式,可减少可能导致不良后果的重复剖腹产。然而,在一些国家,VBAC 并不普遍。医疗服务提供者是孕妇分娩方式决策过程的重要组成部分。医护人员对 VBAC 的看法会影响他们是否支持或避免进行 VBAC。本综述旨在探讨医护人员对 VBAC 的看法:方法:从 PubMed、MEDLINE、Scopus、Cochrane Library、EMBASE 和 Google scholar 等六个数据库中进行全面检索。对 2013 年至 2023 年间发表的英文研究进行了审查。检索时使用了医学主题词 "VBAC "和 "视角"。根据 PRISMA 流程图筛选出符合条件的研究。初步检索结果为 558 篇文章。在剔除重复文章、未检索到全文的文章以及不符合纳入和排除标准的文章后,共征集到 8 篇文章。研究质量评估采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的工具进行。采用元汇总法对研究结果进行综合:本综述纳入了 8 篇定性文章,并形成了 6 个主题,包括:(1)对 VBAC 的不同认识;(2)进行剖宫产术后试产(TOLAC)(尝试进行 VBAC 的方法)的意愿水平差异;(3)进行 TOLAC 时所需的技能和资源;(4)招募候选者和 TOLAC 管理协议;(5)VBAC 的最终决策;以及(6)提供 TOLAC 信息的开始时间和持续时间:医疗服务提供者在影响个人决定分娩方式方面发挥着重要作用。医疗服务提供者对 TOLAC 的积极认可和意愿可能会影响 VBAC 的成功率。然而,TOLAC/VBAC 的不良结果引起的诉讼是选择再次剖腹产的主要原因:本系统综述的 PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42023427662。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review.

Background: Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Birth (VBAC) is a birth mode recommended for reducing repeat cesarean which potentially contributes to adverse outcomes. However, VBAC is not normally practiced in some countries. Providers are an important part of the decision-making process on modes of birth among pregnant individuals. Providers' perspective on VBAC can influence whether they support or avoid conducting VBAC. This review aimed to explore providers' perspective on VBAC.

Methods: The comprehensive search was conducted from six databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google scholar. The studies published in English between 2013 and 2023 were review. The Medical Subject Heading terms for VBAC and perspective were used to search. The eligible studies were selected by the PRISMA flow chart. The initial search yielded 558 articles. After excluding duplicates, articles not retrieved for full-text, and not meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles were recruited. Quality appraisal of the studies was performed by the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The meta-aggregation approach was applied to synthesize the findings.

Results: Eight qualitative articles were included in this review, and six themes were developed including (1) different recognition of VBAC, (2) differences of willingness level of conducting Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) (the approach attempting to have VBAC), (3) skills and resources needed when performing TOLAC, (4) protocol for recruiting candidacy and TOLAC management, (5) final decision making on VBAC, and (6) onset and duration of providing TOLAC information.

Conclusion: Providers play an important role in influencing individuals' decision on modes of birth. Providers' positive recognition and willingness of conducting TOLAC potentially impact successful VBAC rate. However, the lawsuit caused by adverse outcomes from TOLAC/VBAC is a main reason for choosing repeat cesarean.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number of this systematic review: CRD42023427662.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信