Women's experience of emergency caesarean birth. 2006. (accessed 22 September 2021)

Begley K, Daly D, Panda S, Belgey C. Shared decision-making in maternity care: Acknowledging and overcoming epistemic defeaters. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2019; 25:(6)1113-1120

Bell A, Andersson E. The birth experience and women's postnatal depression: a systematic review. Midwifery. 2016; 39:112-123

Benton M, Salter A, Tape N, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Women's psychosocial outcomes following an emergency caesarean section: A systematic literature review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019; 19:(1)1-24

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11:(2)1-12

Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies, 2nd Edition. In: Higgins J (eds). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019

D'Souza R, Arulkumaran S. To ‘C’ or not to ‘C’? Caesarean delivery upon maternal request: A review of facts, figures & guidelines. Journal of Perinatal Medicine. 2013; 41:(1)5-15

D'Souza R. Caesarean section on maternal request for non-medical reasons: putting the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines in perspective. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2013; 27:(2)165-177

Fenwick S, Holloway I, Alexander J. Achieving normality: The key to status passage to motherhood after a caesarean section. Midwifery. 2009; 25:(5)554-563

Firdous T, Darwin Z, Hassan SM. Muslim women's experiences of maternity services in the UK: qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2020; 20:(1)

Gee R, Corry M. Patient engagement and shared decision making in maternity care. Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012; 120:(5)995-997

Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006; 113:(6)647-656

The Health Foundation. Person-centred care made simple, what everyone should know about person-centred care. 2014. (accessed 21 August 2020)

Higginbottom G, Evans C, Morgan M, Bharj K, Eldridge J, Hussain B. Experience of and access to maternity care in the UK by immigrant women: a narrative synthesis systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:(12)

Kenyon SL, Johns N, Duggal S, Hewston R, Gale N. Improving the care pathway for women who request Caesarean section: an experience-based co-design study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2016; 16:(1)

Kingdon C, Neilson J, Singleton V, Gyte G, Hart A, Gabbay M, Lavender T. Choice and birth method: mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2009; 116:(7)886-895

Kjerulff K, Brubaker L. New mothers feelings of disappointment and failure after caesarean delivery. Birth. 2017; 45:(1)19-27

Lobel M, DeLuca R. Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: review and analysis of their causes and implications. Social Science & Medicine. 2007; 64:(11)2272-2284

Mason N. Women's stories of planned caesarean birth in their first pregnancy.Brighton: University of Brighton; 2015

Meyrick J. What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology. 2006; 11:(5)799-808

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6:(6)

Moore JE. Women's voices in maternity care: the triad of shared decision making, informed consent, and evidence-based practices. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2016; 30:(3)218-23

Murphy DJ, Pope C, Frost J, Liebling RE. Women's views on the impact of operative delivery in the second stage of labour: qualitative interview study. BMJ. 2003; 327:(7424)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section. 2013. (accessed 18 August 2020)

Paranjothy S. Caesarean section rates in England and Wales: investigating variation between maternity units.London: School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 2004

Patterson J, Martin C, Karatzias T. PTSD post-childbirth: a systematic review of women's and midwives' subjective experiences of care provider interaction. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 2019; 37:(1)56-83

Porter M, van Teijlingen E, Chi Ying Yip L, Bhattacharya S. Satisfaction with cesarean section: qualitative analysis of open-ended questions in a large postal survey. Birth. 2007; 34:(2)148-154

Puia D. A Meta-synthesis of women's experiences of cesarean birth. MCN, the American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing. 2013; 38:(1)41-47

Redshaw M, Hockley C. Institutional processes and individual responses: women's experiences of care in relation to cesarean birth. Birth. 2010; 37:(2)150-159

Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report.London: RCOG Press; 2001

Spaich S, Welzel G, Berlit S Mode of delivery and its influence on women's satisfaction with childbirth. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology. 2013; 170:(2)401-406

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8:(1)

Tully K, Ball H. Misrecognition of need: women's experiences of and explanations for undergoing cesarean delivery. Social Science & Medicine. 2013; 85:103-111

van Griensven H, Moore A, Hall V. The long-term impact of Caesarean section scar problems on the individual and associated healthcare needs. Journal of Pelvic, Obstetric and Gynaecological Physiotherapy. 2016; 118:14-30

Weckesser A, Farmer N, Dam R, Wilson A, Morton VH, Morris RK. Women's perspectives on caesarean section recovery, infection and the PREPS trial: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019; 19:(1)

Wise J. Alarming global rise in caesarean births, figures show. BMJ. 2018; 363

York S, Briscoe L, Walkinshaw S, Lavender T. Why women choose to have a repeat caesarean section. British Journal of Midwifery. 2005; 13:(7)440-445

Caesarean section as an informed choice in the UK: a systematic review

02 October 2021
20 min read
Volume 29 · Issue 10



Despite the steady increase in the number of women giving birth via caesarean section in the UK, little is understood about how shared decision making is implemented in obstetrics or what this means for women that have given birth via caesarean. The aim of this review is to assess narratives of women's experiences of caesarean birth as an informed choice and their involvement in this process.


A number of databases were searched, including MEDLINE via EBSCO, EMBASE via OVID, MIDIRS via OVID, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Google Scholar and Ethos, as well as the reference sections of the included studies. Primary studies published between 1990–2020 were included and quality was assessed using the critical appraisal skills programme tool. Findings were analysed using a thematic synthesis framework to elicit higher order interpretations.


A total of 11 studies were included in the final review. Quality assessment indicated the studies were generally of good quality, with the main limitations being in methodology quality indicators. Thematic synthesis identified eight subthemes within three main themes: ‘patient-doctor relationships’, ‘decision making as an emotional journey’ and ‘caesarean not really an informed “choice”’. The role of healthcare providers in promoting women's agency via patient-centred care was a prominent theme in women's narratives.


Women's decision making in consent to undergo caesarean births is a complex, emotionally driven process that can have a significant long-term psychological impact.

The continual increase in caesarean section rates in the UK has been recognised as a public health issue because of a lack of evidence that caesarean section generates better (or at least equitable) mother–infant outcomes compared to vaginal delivery (D'Souza and Arulkumaran, 2013; D'Souza, 2013; Wise, 2018). The World Health Organization emphasises that caesarean section rates over 15%, such as in the UK where the rate is currently 26.2%, is indicative of unnecessary and therefore unethical surgical intervention (Betrán et al, 2016; Wise, 2018).

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2013) guidelines state informed choice/consent is the pinnacle in enabling women to act as equal partners in deciding their mode of birth in a clinical environment. Informed choice is achieved by maternity care providers supplying women with impartial, evidence-based information (D'Souza, 2013; NICE, 2013; Moore, 2016). The long-term benefits of shared decision making in obstetrics are widely recognised and include increased equity in care, decreased litigation because of improved patient satisfaction and better patient outcomes resulting in reduced post-care complications (Gee and Corry, 2012). Results from international studies identify that UK providers score highly in indicators of supporting women's rights to caesarean section as an informed choice (Habiba et al, 2006; Betrán et al, 2016). However, shared decision making and informed choice are misunderstood by healthcare providers and are mostly comprised of a shallow process of decanting knowledge to lay persons in order to obtain a consent signature (Begley et al, 2019).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical newsletter updates each month