ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff

Clear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Qualitative website analysis of information on birth after caesarean section

Peddie, Valerie L., Whitelaw, Natalie, Cumming, Grant P., Bhattacharya, Siladitya

and Black, Mairead 2015. Qualitative website analysis of information on birth after caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 15 , 180. 10.1186/s12884-015-0614-0

Preview

PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (459kB) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0614-0

Abstract

Background The United Kingdom (UK) caesarean section (CS) rate is largely determined by reluctance to augment trial of labour and vaginal birth. Choice between repeat CS and attempting vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in the next pregnancy is challenging, with neither offering clear safety advantages. Women may access online information during the decision-making process. Such information is known to vary in its support for either mode of birth when assessed quantitatively. Therefore, we sought to explore qualitatively, the content and presentation of web-based health care information on birth after caesarean section (CS) in order to identify the dominant messages being conveyed. Methods The search engine Google™ was used to conduct an internet search using terms relating to birth after CS. The ten most frequently returned websites meeting relevant purposive sampling criteria were analysed. Sampling criteria were based upon funding source, authorship and intended audience. Images and written textual content together with presence of links to additional media or external web content were analysed using descriptive and thematic analyses respectively. Results Ten websites were analysed: five funded by Government bodies or professional membership; one via charitable donations, and four funded commercially. All sites compared the advantages and disadvantages of both repeat CS and VBAC. Commercially funded websites favoured a question and answer format alongside images, ‘pop-ups’, social media forum links and hyperlinks to third-party sites. The relationship between the parent sites and those being linked to may not be readily apparent to users, risking perception of endorsement of either VBAC or repeat CS whether intended or otherwise. Websites affiliated with Government or health services presented referenced clinical information in a factual manner with podcasts of real life experiences. Many imply greater support for VBAC than repeat CS although this was predominantly conveyed through subtle use of words rather than overt messages, with the exception of the latter being apparent in one site. Conclusions Websites providing information on birth after CS appear to vary in nature of content according to their funding source. The most user-friendly, balanced and informative websites appear to be those funded by government agencies.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Publisher:	BioMed Central
ISSN:	1471-2393
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	28 August 2018
Date of Acceptance:	10 August 2015
Last Modified:	13 May 2023 15:18
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/114435