Health care workers’ perceptions of episiotomy in the era of respectful maternity care: a qualitative study of an obstetric training program in Mexico

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-70052/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Health care workers’ perceptions of episiotomy in the era of respectful maternity care: a qualitative study of an obstetric training program in Mexico

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-70052/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 12 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Episiotomy in Mexico is highly prevalent and often routine - performed in up to 95% of births to primiparous women. The WHO suggests that episiotomy be used in selective cases, with an expected prevalence of 15%. Training programs to date have been unsuccessful in changing this practice. This research aims to understand how health personal, at four community hospitals in Mexico, perceive episiotomy, both before and after training in respectful maternity care, obstetric and neonatal emergencies.

Methods

This is a descriptive and interpretative qualitative study. We conducted Fifty-three pre and post-intervention (PRONTO© Program) semi-structured interviews with generalists, specialists and nurses (N = 32, 56% women). Thematic analysis was carried out using Atlas-ti© software to iteratively organize codes. Through interpretive triangulation, the team found theoretical saturation and explanatory depth on key analytical categories.

Results

Themes fell into six major themes surrounding their perceptions of episiotomy: as a predictable practice, as a prophylactic intervention, as a procedure that resolves problems in the moment, as a practice that gives the clinician control, as a risky practice, and the role of social norms in practicing it. Results show contradictory discourses among professionals. Despite the growing support for the selective use of episiotomy, it remains positively perceived as an effective prophylaxis for the complications of childbirth while maintaining control in the hands of medical personnel.

Conclusions

Perceptions of episiotomy shed light on how and why routine episiotomy persists, and provides insight into the multi-faceted approaches that will be required to affect this and other harmful obstetrical practices.

Maternal & Fetal Medicine

Mexico

perceive episiotomy

WHO

PRONTO

In Mexico, childbirth is largely medicalized, with obstetrical procedures representing 45.2% of all medical interventions (1) and a 95% rate of facility deliveries (2). While there are important advantages of having broad institutional coverage of obstetric care, 14.3% of all pregnancies, births and women in the postnatal period experience significant morbidities (3). While there are remaining research gaps on maternal morbidity in Mexico (4, 5), the relationship between low quality of health services and maternal and infant morbidity and mortality is well established (6, 7).

Miller and colleagues (7) contextualized the over-medicalization of normal pregnancy and birth in a landmark systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for obstetric interventions and practices. They describe two extremes in maternity care: “too little, too late” (TLTL) where care is unavailable, unsafe, or available too late to help; and “too much, too soon” (TMTS), where the overutilization of interventions which can otherwise be lifesaving can cause harm when used inappropriately. TMTS also includes the inappropriate induction and augmentation of labour (8) and interventions with evidence of harm, including continuous electronic fetal monitoring, routine episiotomies, or enemas (9). Miller and colleagues demonstrate that both groups of factors can co-exist, particularly in middle-income countries like Mexico (7).

Episiotomy is one of the most common obstetrical procedures (10). It is the surgical incision of the perineum and posterior vaginal wall during the second stage of labour (11). The complications – as compared to allowing the perineum to tear naturally - include an increased risk of anal sphincter injuries (12), persistent pain, pelvic floor defects, urinary and rectal incontinence, dyspareunia (10), the risk of tearing in the next delivery, and a longer recovery period (12, 13).

The prevalence of episiotomy in Mexico ranges from 41.8% in the state of Oaxaca to 77.2% in Mexico City - where up to 95% of primiparous women receive an episiotomy (14); these figures likely underestimate the problem since the procedure is not consistently documented, and health care providers may perform routine episiotomies despite ‘knowing’ about the complications (15, 16). These figures are anomalous when we compare them to the prevalence of episiotomy in the United States (25%) and Europe (30%) (17).

Scientific evidence and national norms and guidelines all support the selective use of episiotomy (18, 19). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against routine episiotomy, and acknowledges that there is no evidence to support routine episiotomy in modern obstetrics (20, 21). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) established in 2006 and corroborated in 2018 that episiotomy should be restricted, and that physicians should use their clinical judgment to decide when the procedure is necessary (20). Since 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended a prevalence of less than 15% for episiotomies in order to reduce the associated complications and morbidities (8, 18). National clinical practice guidelines and “norms” for the care of childbirth in Mexico appropriately describe in a non-prescriptive manner that episiotomies be performed selectively (22) and only in the context of instrumental delivery or a rigid perineum causing harm to the fetus (23).

The high prevalence of episiotomy in Mexico is simultaneously both a public health problem and a human rights imperative, since it is often carried out routinely and without a woman’s consent (14, 15). This has spurred a number of initiatives in the last decade to improve the quality of obstetric care, with varying results (24). One simulation and team training for obstetric and neonatal emergencies program has been one of the more successful programs and has been replicated in Mexico, Guatemala, Kenya, Namibia and India (25). The program uses simulation to train health personnel on teamwork, communication, emergency obstetric and neonatal care, and the application of evidence-based medicine to reduce harmful practices (Walker et al., 2016). The obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program evaluations in Mexico demonstrate significant improvements in a number of beneficial practices, including the Active Management of the Third Stage of Labour (AMTSL) and delayed umbilical cord clamping. However there are no demonstrated reductions of unhelpful practices like the routine use of episiotomy in labour (26–28).

This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the how health personnel perceive the practice of episiotomy both before and after they receive training in respectful maternity care from one obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program. This research aims to understand how and why this practice persists despite shifts in knowledge and attitudes, and provide insight into how to approach routine episiotomy and other harmful obstetrical practices going forward.

2.1. Study Design

In 2014 and 2015, the obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program was introduced in the state of Campeche, Mexico, as a collaboration of the National Institute of Public Health (INSP) and the Women's Institute of the State of Campeche. A qualitative study was carried out in the final year of the program to assess the perceptions of participants related to the expected outcomes, and to help explain the changes in practice, or the lack thereof. The participants who received training in 2015 worked in four community hospitals in Campeche, Mexico. The theory of change of the intervention was based on the knowledge, attitudes and practices model (29) framed by the principles of community organization and community building (30). This is a descriptive and interpretative qualitative study conducted both before and after a globally recognized training program in obstetric and neonatal emergencies.

2.2. Participant Selection

Participants were purposefully sampled with maximum variation (31). We included generalists, specialists, and nurses in each hospital to help triangulate results, achieve saturation, and contribute to the richness of the data (32). Inclusion criteria for participants included those directly involved in the delivery of care during labour and delivery, those selected to participate in the obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program, and those who voluntarily accepted to participate in the study. Interviews post-training were limited to participants who attended all of the components of the training sessions. Our intention was to interview the same participants before and after training. At follow up, however, some participants were ill, on vacation, had not participated, or only taken part in some of the training program. The sample thus consisted of a convenience sample of 32 individuals. We conducted a total 53 semi-structured one-on-one, face-to-face interviews (SSIs): 30 before the training (16 from both general and medical specialties and 14 nursing staff) and 23 interviews in follow-up, 2 of whom had not been interviewed prior to the training program (13 with medical personnel and 10 with nursing staff. Everyone available who met the inclusion criteria voluntarily accepted to participate in the study.

2.3. Data Collection

Two interview guides (pre and post intervention) (see Supplemental material 1), followed the main topics of the training program: perception of key evidence-based practices, perceptions of the training, utility of the training, and perceived key barriers and facilitators of changing practices. Interviews were conducted by a research team member (RC), a trained anthropologist who was not involved in the training program team. The researcher had no conflict of interest in terms of financial or professional gains in relation to the training program. SSIs were carried out at the hospitals without a third-party present to help maintain confidentiality. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and lasted an average of 35 minutes. At the end of the interviews, analytical notes were taken to identify emerging themes and verify the saturation of the topics explored.

The research protocol received ethics approval from the INSP ethics committee (project number: CI -1196 / approval number: IRB − 1693). Data was anonymized and the confidentiality of the participants was fully protected. Participants provided consent at two stages: first they provided written consent to participate in the umbrella study of the PRONTO training program through their hospitals, with a written agreement between the Campeche Women’s Institute and the Campeche Health secretariat. We then obtained verbal consent before conducting one-on-one interviews to remind participants that their responses were anonymous and they could stop participation at any time. We provided the contact information of the research team to each of the participants.

2.4. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was carried out (33) through axial coding of the data using the principles of grounded theory (34, 35). Atlas-ti © software (36) was used to organize codes. Three researchers independently coded and interpreted the data. Through interpretive triangulation, the team found consensus on major themes. Any discordance was resolved through discussion and a second review of the transcripts. The findings of this article reached theoretical saturation (32) and major themes are presented in the findings.

A total of 45 axial codes emerged under the following categories: hospital resources, work equipment, key practices of medical interventions during childbirth (episiotomy, fundal pressure, delayed cord clamping, AMTSL, and manual removal of the placenta), human rights and health and perceptions of the training program. This paper presents analysis of codes limited to pre-intervention episiotomy and post-intervention episiotomy.

A total of 32 informants participated, two thirds (66%) of whom were interviewed both before and after the intervention. The median age of the participants was 38 years old, and about half (56%) were women. The breakdown was 47% nursing staff, 34% generalist physicians and 19% specialist physicians. Their median time working in the hospital was 8 years (see Table 1).

Table 1

Characteristics of the health personnel interviewed, Campeche, Mexico, 2015 (N = 32)
		Community Hospitals (CH)
		CH1	CH2	CH3	CH4	Total
Age average		46	36	35	40	39
Sex	Man	4	3	4	3	14
Sex	Woman	4	4	3	7	18
Profile	Nurse	3	3	3	7	16
	Physician	2	4	1	3	10
	Physician Specialist	3	0	3	0	6
Years average working at	Nurse	22	14.5	5	9.2	12.61
	Physician	16	6.25	3	5.7	7.73
	Physician Specialist	11.5	-	1.3	-	6.41
Participation	Baseline	8	7	7	8	30
Participation	Follow up	8	5	5	5	23
Interview identification codes*		C01, C02, C03, C04, C05, C06, C07, C08	H01, H02, H03, H04, H05, H06, H07	M01, M02, M03, M04, M05, M06, M07	X01, X02, X03, X04, X05, X06, X07, X08, X09, X10
* The Interview identification code was created with the first letter of the hospital research ID and a consecutive number. The labels that appear in the testimonies quotations were built by placing a "B" (baseline) or "F" (follow-up) followed by the informant code.

The findings were analyzed as a single body of data, given that no substantial differences were identified between informants of different professions or hospitals. Similarly, many themes were consistent before and after the training program and thus transcripts were analyzed as a whole; where practices and perceptions had shifted or findings different post intervention, we note these findings specifically. Findings fell broadly into the following major themes surrounding different conceptions of episiotomy: episiotomy as a predictable practice based on the characteristics of the woman or baby; episiotomy as a prophylactic practice to prevent complications; episiotomy as a practice that resolves problems in the moment; episiotomy gives clinicians control; episiotomy as a practice that involves risks; the role of the obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program alongside shifts in social norms.

3.1. Episiotomy as a predictable practice

In electing to perform an episiotomy, a number of informants both at baseline and follow up, emphasized the importance of predisposing risk factors that predict the need for episiotomy, such as the size, weight, age and parity of the woman, as well as the weight and size of the baby:

“The woman’s height is also a variable, usually in primiparous women who are tall as the pelvis is more suited to labor, whereas the short or skinny ones do mean more work.” Physician, informant, B, M06

A large or ‘macrosomic baby’ necessitated routine episiotomy as described by some informants, alongside the perception that natural tearing resulted in worse outcomes.

‘Now we must also put ourselves from the other point of view, if the baby is large, an episiotomy has fewer complications than a third- or fourth-degree vaginal tear.” Specialist informant, F, M01

“[We perform an episiotomy] sometimes when [babies] come out macrosomic. There are times when there is no time to send [the woman] to another unit and we have to assist with the delivery anyway.” Nurse informant, F, X01

A less common theme emerged in the same vein which referenced the genetic characteristics of the population predicting the need for episiotomy – described as a predictable medical intervention based on ‘risk factors’.

“[Episiotomy] is necessary much of the time. Mainly in this region of southeast [Mexico], children have super large heads, that is the reality, they are wide, they are babies with very wide shoulders, and if you do not do an episiotomy, the head comes out, but when you take out the shoulder you will tear everything.” Specialist informant, B, M07

Parity was cited separately as an important factor in the decision to perform an episiotomy, but a number of contradictions emerged. Informants widely recognized that episiotomy should not be a routine practice, but the same informants state that primigravid women should systematically receive episiotomies because of the lack of elasticity of the vaginal tissue and, using the same argument, in multigravida women, state it is not necessary:

“Episiotomy should not be a routine maneuver; I have had several patients in which I have not used it and I have not had any tears. Who are we going to use it on? [...] For example, in the primiparous women, whose tissues are very resistant, and there is a very high possibility of labor injuries, but there are large, multiparous women who have already had other children and in the moment I see very ‘soft’ tissue, so I consider that nothing more than guiding the head... then, specifically, I do not consider that episiotomy should be routine.” Physician informant, B, C05

A few informants specifically identified that there are primiparous women who do not need episiotomy, and multiparous women that do require it:

“I have had primiparous patients who don’t need an episiotomy ... there is a small laceration, a small tear, but not something so big ... And there are patients who are multiparous and for whatever reason, we need to do an episiotomy.” Physician informant, B, H06

In both the pre-intervention and post-intervention interviews, informants valued these factors that help them ‘predict’ and influence the decision to perform an episiotomy.

3.2. Episiotomy as a prophylactic intervention

Episiotomy was also described as an intervention that prevents complications during childbirth. These testimonies were observed in both the baseline and follow-up interviews. We found a persistent perception that episiotomy prevents fetal distress by accelerating delivery and preventing the woman from having to push too much during the delivery.

“[Episiotomy] is performed when the woman, in this case, has a narrow pelvis and requires a cut for that baby to be born, as well as to avoid a tear, because then they do not stop bleeding, bleeding, bleeding...” Nurse informant, B, M04

“Yes I have heard cases where even if the baby can [be delivered on his own], the episiotomy is performed so as not to wait any longer.” Nurse informant, F, X09

“[…] You injure the pelvic floor when you do not do the episiotomy, the patient has to make much more effort and there are times when, even if you do not do the episiotomy, the baby will pass and tear everything...” Specialist informant, B, M07

Two important ideas underlie these statements: the first refers to the belief that the delivery must be resolved quickly, and the second to the concept that the episiotomy accelerates and facilitates labor, preventing problems. Some informants also believed that episiotomy prevents pelvic floor disfunction and prevents significant bleeding caused by tearing:

“[Episiotomy is] very important, always necessary to prevent pelvic floor problems, and [should be done] routinely.” Specialist informant, B, C06

“They mentioned in the course [obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program] that only fetal suffering is an indication for episiotomy, yes, but if you have a lady who is fully [dilated] and the baby does not come out, the tear will be worse and it will be more difficult to repair something like that ... than to repair a straight cut.” Specialist informant, F, M07

3.3. Episiotomy: a procedure that resolves problems in the moment

In contrast to the concepts of episiotomy as either a predictable or prophylactic procedure, other informants described episiotomy as a procedure that resolves problems in the moment - that is, the decision about when to perform the procedure presents itself only during expulsion:

“I believe that it is a practice that should be used, but it has its moment, when the head is crowning - there is the moment, when you have to do it.” Specialist informant, B, C01

Complications during labour are taken into account in the decision to perform an episiotomy; for example, it was described as a support maneuver to relieve pressure on the cord, in the case of fetal distress or shoulder dystocia:

“Another [circumstance] in which I could say that we could consider doing [an episiotomy] is in the looped cord, because dryness makes extraction difficult, so we need to insert the fingers (…) [The episiotomy is also indicated] in a shoulder dystocia that doesn't’ resolve despite the maneuvers ...”. Specialist informant, F, M02

“The episiotomy is only indicated in a fetal distress, if it is during expulsion.” Nurse informant, F, M03

In the post-intervention interviews, we observed greater consistency in how informants described the circumstances by which episiotomy was appropriate to solve problems in the moment.

3.4. Episiotomy gives the clinician control

Both in the pre-intervention and in the post-intervention interviews reflected the position that from the perspective of the clinician it is easier to repair a straight incision from an episiotomy than an irregular one caused by a natural tear, something that seems to motivate the routine use of episiotomy. This at times favored the ease of execution of the procedure, where the woman’s well-being falls to the background and the consequences and risks of a surgical incision are forgotten:

“[Episiotomy] is used because sometimes when the baby's head comes out it tears the woman's perineum; it is easier to suture a cut with a scissors or something sharp, than when it is torn, because when it is torn it is already irregular ... with the scissors the cut is clean, you can suture better than when the muscle and mucosa are torn, where sometimes it reaches the rectum.” Physician informant, B, M06

In the same way, when treating a woman who has not had prenatal care, episiotomy address their worries and offers a sense of control to the medical staff:

“Those [circumstances] in which it would probably be carried out are the primips… for example, if you have not seen the patient before, she might arrive with a macrosomic baby” ... Physician informant, B, X08

“There are patients who did not get any antenatal care…. Then we must face whatever comes. In this case [Episiotomy] is good because it gives us the weapons to face the things we do not expect [in order to prevent unknown problems], but it is definitely a matter of being very aware. Every woman is different.” Specialist informant, F, M02

One informant during a pre-intervention interview justified episiotomy when the woman “did not cooperate” with the health personnel:

“Episiotomy is usually done to patients who are primips, who do not know or do not cooperate, that sometimes the baby is large, that is when they perform an episiotomy.” Nurse informant, B, X03

3.5. Episiotomy as a risky practice

In both the pre and post-intervention interviews, a few participants were against the routine use of episiotomy, even describing it as violation of women’s bodily autonomy and a practice with limited benefits:

“When they train us as doctors, they routinely explain to us that generally for the first birth [episiotomy] has to be performed in all women. However, I consider that this is not true, because the episiotomy, after all, is an assault (...), is a wound that is being imparted on the patient and like any other wound (...) has risks of becoming infected, and risks of opening.” Specialist informant, B, M01

After participating in the training program, informants communicated a clearer perception of the risks involved in performing episiotomy, including bleeding, risk of infection and of the incision extending through the perineum:

“If the head is crowning and we don't think there is enough room to deliver, then cut, make the incision ... but if not, it is not necessary for me to have an episiotomy, because sometimes there are doctors who go where they shouldn’t go. I see those women as very traumatized.” Nurse informant, B, C08

“[With episiotomy] there is a higher risk of postpartum bleeding and a higher risk of becoming infected a vaginal delivery without an episiotomy (...) If there is a tear, just repair it.” Nurse informant, F, X10

A few informants underestimated the risk of complications, however. One informant blamed woman’s ‘lack of hygiene’ for the risk of infection with an episiotomy wound:

“Sometimes [episiotomy] can generate a risk of infection (...) if the mother does not have the forms of hygiene and as generally, they are from here, because they do not have hygienic practices, perhaps they should wash themselves better, dry themselves well…”. Nurse informant, B, H01

3.6. The role of the training program alongside shifts in social norms

Social pressure emerged as one of several factors that contribute to performing episiotomy outside of clinical criteria. If there are complications such as a third degree or fourth degree tear where the episiotomy is not performed, there are social repercussions, motivating its routine use:

“If you do not perform an episiotomy, [the vaginal canal] can be torn on several sides, and the most dangerous is when it reaches the anal sphincter; now the complication comes, which is a fistula, no? And [colleagues] are going to say ‘why didn't you do the episiotomy?’ So, the idea is that sometimes you even make a small [routine] cut and that's it.” Physician informant, B, X08

These statements contrast with other statements that episiotomy be avoided as a method of imparting obstetric violence and in the context of current discourse on humanized childbirth.

We also found examples where there was social pressure to avoid episiotomy alongside a perceived shift in norms:

“There was a time when episiotomies were being avoided a lot ... for the same reason, because of the environment of obstetric violence, but ... well, I watched four cases of [natural] tearing ...” Physician informant, B, H07

“[Episiotomy] has been avoided for humanized birth ... [delivery] has to progress… but now we say don’t push it, there is no "Be quick and done!" but rather naturally progress thus avoid episiotomy.” Nurse informant, B, H01

Academic training and habits developed over years of clinical care were other important factors determining the practice of episiotomy. Informants shared stories of routine episiotomy being introduced during the internship period and further solidifying through clinical practice as a routine intervention:

“Before it was everyone, even if they had a very elastic vagina ... I think that is more because we learn it this way by ...as a routine practice... when we go through internship ... but now on reflection, no it should not be performed in all cases, only in specific cases.” Physician informant, B, H07

Perceptions also shifted after the obstetric and neonatal emergencies training to be generally more supportive of selective episiotomy, voicing more personal conviction in implementing the recommendations of the training program.

“On two occasions I did not do the episiotomy and the tears were minimal. Everything was fine, we weren't used to not doing episiotomy [before the training], but I already put it into practice.” Physician informant, F, M06

One positive outcome of the program was a shift in post intervention informants describing the procedure as necessary, but only in some cases:

“ I liked the section on episiotomy in the course, because it reiterated that that sometimes it can be omitted (...) in particular cases. There are some cases in which it is very well indicated and necessary.” Specialist informant, F, C06

Several informants post-intervention reflected shifting perceptions about the delivery care, which was more focused on the well-being of women and supporting her in labor:

“I think that the important thing here is to assess each patient because you also have to have a connection with the patient and you have to know how to support her well. A well-monitored, well supported labor will support a naturally progressing labour where you see that everything is going well, and can avoid an episiotomy.” Specialist informant, F, M01

Finally, another justification for performing routine episiotomy offered by informants was the confusion about the role of “vaginal elasticity” and confusing this with a narrow pelvic outlet. This confusion seems to have consolidated in everyday discourse and practice, although the anatomical difference is evident:

“Sometimes, when the baby is too big, (...) even if the woman is already fully dilated, it does not come out at all, sometimes her pelvis is also very narrow and the episiotomy helps her open and there is no further complication.” Nurse informant, B, H01

This study provides unique perspective into health care provider perceptions surrounding episiotomy in a high prevalence setting. For the first time in Mexico, qualitative methods reveal the context for the research-practice gap, and why this routine medical practice persists despite well described harms to the health of women. This study highlights why routine episiotomy remains a stubborn medical practice to change (21), and offers practical insight into how to close the gap between evidence and practice (40) for this and and other “Too Much Too Soon” interventions (7).

Our results reveal that clinicians have a clearer conception of the risks of episiotomy after training in respectful maternity care, despite lack of consensus on when it should be performed. A few informants even described social pressure to avoid episiotomy in the context of the global movement towards respectful maternity care. These attitudes have yet to translate to more selective use of episiotomy in practice, however, which remains enshrined with positive attributes for its power to prevent anticipated complications of childbirth.

Routine episiotomy is a global problem, and similar rationale for routine episiotomy have been described in other studies. Both qualitative and quantitative studies worldwide identified that parity and the anatomical characteristics of the woman and fetus influenced how clinicians perceived the need for episiotomy, which is directly linked to fear of tearing (37–39). Perhaps unique to our study is the finding that physicians conflate pelvic size and perineal elasticity. No direct observation of births took place, and we suspect that clinicians are not in fact performing episiotomies when the head is high. Rather, this seems a distraction from the overall persistent, positive view of episiotomy as a practice that reassures providers, and resolves anticipated complications based on the routine nature of the practice (40). Post-training, informants still viewed episiotomy positively to help accelerate birth, reduce maternal effort, and prevent complications.

Attitudes and beliefs surrounding episiotomy appear particularly subjective, and clinician preferences remained misaligned with evidence-based practice. Perhaps the most striking example of this is a study which randomized patients to receive restricted versus routine episiotomy (41). One third of physicians didn’t change their practice, and refused to open the study envelope, using episiotomy 90% of the time in both trial arms. Physicians who viewed episiotomy more positively were more likely to view normal labour as abnormal – overestimating fetal distress or underestimating the ability of the perineum to stretch.

Another study found that fewer than one-third of obstetricians surveyed relied on evidence-based literature in their decision to perform episiotomy (42). One striking example of this from ours and several other studies is that clinicians stated preference to suture a straight cut over spontaneous perineal tears, despite the literature that suggests that an episiotomy requires equal or more time to repair (43–45). Moreover, it does not prevent tears in normal deliveries (46). In this sense, routine episiotomy remained normalized and grounded in early training, where their supervisors and mentors performed routine episiotomies. Teachers may not have learned how to repair three-dimensional natural tears or feel comfortable doing so (47, 48). This has significant implications for training and behavior change; early and continuous medical education training should include three-dimensional suturing models (20, 49), and identify a local leader who can mentor other physicians (25, 28).

This study also highlights the unique challenges for changing a routine practice that has potential benefits, as compared to a routine test or procedure that is harmful or has no benefits. This nuance is reflected in a recent cohort study which confirmed that episiotomy is protective against anal sphincter injury in operative (vacuum or forceps) vaginal delivery (50). The potential for benefit makes episiotomy particularly difficult practice to change, regulate, and ‘control’.

National guidelines in both middle- and high-income countries endorse the restricted, or selective, use of episiotomy, but leave room for the practitioner to use their discretion. Clinical guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in the USA and the National Institute of Clinical Evidence (NICE) in the UK both recommend against the routine use of episiotomy, but leave ample room for clinician discretion stating that physicians should use their clinical judgment to decide when the procedure is necessary (51) (52). It remains unclear how much of the decline in episiotomy in the US can be attributed to the publication of the ACOG guidelines: at that time, one fourth of all vaginal deliveries resulted in episiotomy, but it’s use was already in decline, down from 34% (19).

Urban nonteaching hospitals having the highest rates of episiotomy, a finding consistent with several studies showing significant differences depending on the teaching status of the hospital (53–55). The publication of the ACOG clinical guidelines precipitated a narrowing of this discrepancy, and thus may have helped reduce disparities between institutions (56). Another factor is how much confidence and trust is placed in governing bodies and national guidelines (42). Dramatic decreases in the episiotomy rate in France were attributed to the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) because its clinical practice guidelines clearly advocated for a policy of restrictive episiotomy (57, 58). In contrast, the wording of the 2016 ‘Official Norm’ for Mexico remains purposefully vague and supports the provider to use their clinical judgement (22). The ‘clinical guideline for the care of women in labour’ is also thought to exert little influence in Mexico because it is not enforced either positively or punitively (23). Globally, high quality guidelines are necessary, but not sufficient to close the “know-do gap” (7, 59).

Considering this, and the particularly complex, ‘stubborn’ and ritualistic nature of routine episiotomy, what has worked elsewhere at a facility, programmatic, and population-level? At the facility level, restrictive episiotomy hospital policies were successful in dramatically decreasing the episiotomy rate in both Nepal (60) and Hong Kong (61). Zhang-Rutledge and colleagues (62) took a quality improvement approach with success: they used education, performance feedback, and the Hawthorne effect with a significant reduction in the episiotomy rate in a large academic institution. At a programmatic and population level, there is less data to support episiotomy practices specifically. We do know generally that guidelines are more likely to be implemented with a mix of audit and feedback, financial incentives, simulations and drills, and continuing professional development (63–66). Programs and interventions that only target providers are likely to have limited effect (67).

A systems approach in the context of harmful obstetrical practices would engage women and communities. One indicator of respectful maternity care, for example, is offering birth companions to women in labour, which is strongly encouraged by the WHO (68). This unique combination of support and advocacy during labour might may indirectly impact harmful and abusive practices during childbirth (69).

Episiotomy was not the only focus on the obstetric and neonatal emergencies training program, whose main objective was to provide training in emergency obstetric care. However, we suspect that given shifts in knowledge and attitudes post-training that a more comprehensive approach -including facility-level guideline development, local leadership, supervision, and support- may have effective to move practice.

Our study has some limitations. Initially, not all subjects who participated in the baseline study were able to participate post-training. However, the objective of this qualitative study was not to complete a formal course evaluation, but rather understand the perceptions behind the practices of the medical and nursing staff. Indeed, one of the strengths of the study is having interviewed almost all of the subjects trained in the program before and after receiving the training, allowing for some inference about the early impact of the training itself.

Routine episiotomy remains a particularly stubborn practice to change, positively perceived as effective prophylaxis for the complications of childbirth while maintaining control in the hands of medical personnel. Clinicians were mentored and trained to perform routine episiotomies and feel more comfortable with their repair. To close the research-policy-practice gap, multifaceted approaches which combine clear, high quality guidelines and training with quality improvement approaches to supervision and support, audit and feedback, simulations and drills, and continuing professional development are urgently needed.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research protocol received ethics approval from the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública de México – INSP) ethics committee (project number: CI -1196 / approval number: IRB - 1693). Data was anonymized and the confidentiality of the participants was fully protected. Participants provided verbal consent and contact information of the research team was provided for each of the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. Data was anonymized.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset generated (interviews’ transcripts) and analyzed during the current study is not publicly available due to the fact that the data would be sufficient to identify individual informants and, therefore, violate their confidentiality. However, it can be requested from the corresponding author who can provide anonymized data on reasonable request. It is only available in Spanish.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This study was funded by the Women’s Institute of the State of Campeche (Instituto de la Mujer del Estado de Campeche - IMEC) (trade number: INMUJERES/DGIPEG/00303-28/2013, Goal #6). This study was part of the Center for Research in Population Health (Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional – CISP) at the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública de México – INSP). The funding agency did not influence the research questions, methods or analysis in any way.

Authors' contributions

RGC helped design the study, was responsible for the field work and collecting data, analyzed and interpreted the data, drafting all sections of the article, and literature review. PTP helped design the study and analyzed and interpreted the data. MOG was responsible for writing the grant protocol, helped design the study and analyzed and interpreted the data. JH analyzed and interpreted the data and was responsible for reviewing the discussion section and literature review. All authors acknowledge that they have exercised due care in ensuring the integrity of the work. The submitted manuscript has been read and approved by all authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the health authorities of the state of Campeche, Mexico, to the management of the community hospitals where the interviews were conducted, to the authorities of the Women's Institute of the State of Campeche (Instituto de la Mujer del Estado de Campeche - IMEC), specially to Clara Balderrama Barbeitia, and to all the health care workers that participated in the study.

Campos Castolo EM, Villanueva Egan LA, González García I, Ramírez Hernández C, Flores Romero G. Recomendaciones generales para mejorar la calidad en la atención obstétrica [Internet]. Ciudad de México; 2012. Available from: http://www.conamed.gob.mx/prof_salud/pdf/recom_obstetricia_web.pdf.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica ENADID 2014 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2019 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enadid/2014/.
Centro Nacional de Equidad De Género y Salud Reproductiva. Estrategia Integral para Acelerar la Reducción de la Mortalidad Materna en México [Internet]. Ciudad de México; 2009. Available from: http://www.coneval.gob.mx/rw/resource/coneval/info_public/Estrategia_Integral.pdf.
Sánchez Bringas A, Pérez Baleón G. ¿Qué sabemos de la morbilidad materna en México? Género y Salud en cifras. 2014;12(1):3–14.
Esparza-Valencia DM, Toro-Ortiz JC, Herrera-Ortega O, Fernández-Lara JA. Prevalence of extreme maternal morbidity in a second-level hospital in san luis potosí, méxico. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2018;86(5):304–12.
Austin A, Langer A, Salam RA, Lassi ZS, Das JK, Bhutta ZA. Approaches to improve the quality of maternal and newborn health care: An overview of the evidence. Reprod Health. 2014;11(Suppl 2):1–9.
Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, Ciapponi A, Colaci D, Comandé D, et al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet. 2016;388(10056):2176–92.
World Health Organization. Care in normal birth: a practical guide. Birth. 1997 Jun;24(2):121–3.
SEA-ORCHID Study Group. Use of evidence-based practices in pregnancy and childbirth: South East Asia Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries project. PLoS One. 2008 Jul;3(7):e2646.
Thorp JMJ, Bowes WAJ. Episiotomy: can its routine use be defended? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;160(5 Pt 1):1027–30.
Sánchez Casal MI. Episiotomía versus desgarro. Revisión de las evidencias científicas. Enfermería Docente [Internet]. 2012;97:27–32. Available from: http://www.sspa.juntadeandalucia.es/servicioandaluzdesalud/huvvsites/default/files/revistas/ED-97-09.pdf.
Banta D, Thacker SB. The risks and benefits of episiotomy: a review. Birth. 1982;9(1):25–30.
Morano S, Mistrangelo E, Pastorino D, Lijoi D, Costantini S, Ragni N. A randomized comparison of suturing techniques for episiotomy and laceration repair after spontaneous vaginal birth. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(5):457–62.
Comisión Ejecutiva de Atención a Víctimas. Diagnóstico sobre victimización a causa de violencia obstétrica en México [Internet]. Ciudad de México; 2017. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/194701/Diagno_stico_VO_port.pdf.
Castro R, Erviti J. 25 Anos De Investigacion Sobre Violencia Obstetrica En Mexico. Conamed. 2014;19(1):37–42.
Ballesteros-Meseguer C, Carrillo-García C, Meseguer-de-Pedro M, Canteras-Jordana M, Martínez-Roche ME. Episiotomy and its relationship to various clinical variables that influence its performance. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem [Internet]. 2016/05/20. 2016;24:e2793–e2793. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27224064.
Frankman EA, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Episiotomy in the United States: has anything changed? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;200(5):573.e1-7.
Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, Garner P. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2017;(2). Available from: https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3.
Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp JJ, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005 May;293(17):2141–8.
World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. [Internet]. Geneva; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/intrapartum-care-guidelines/en/.
Cunha C, Katz L, Lemos A, Amorim M. Knowledge. Attitude and Practice of Brazilian Obstetricians Regarding Episiotomy. Rev Bras Ginecol e Obs / RBGO Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Nov 1;41:636–46.
DOF: NOM-007-SSA2-2016. Norma Oficial Mexicana para la atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio, y de la persona recién nacida. Ciudad de México; 2016.
IMSS. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la Vigilancia y Manejo del Trabajo Parto en embarazo de Bajo Riesgo. Catálogo Maestro de Guías de Práctica Clínica: IMSS-052-08. Ciudad de México; 2014.
Secretaría de Salud. La calidad de la atención a la salud en México a través de sus instituciones. Ciudad de México; 2015.
Walker DM, Cohen SR, Estrada F, Monterroso ME, Jenny A, Fritz J, et al. PRONTO training for obstetric and neonatal emergencies in Mexico. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;116(2):128–33.
Fritz J, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, Angeles G, Montoya A, Walker D. Health providers pass knowledge and abilities acquired by training in obstetric emergencies to their peers: the average treatment on the treated effect of PRONTO on delivery attendance in Mexico. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jun;18(1):232.
Fritz J, Walker DM, Cohen S, Angeles G, Lamadrid-Figueroa H. Can a simulation-based training program impact the use of evidence based routine practices at birth? Results of a hospital-based cluster randomized trial in Mexico. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172623.
Walker DM, Cohen SR, Fritz J, Olvera-Garcia M, Zelek ST, Fahey JO, et al. Impact Evaluation of PRONTO Mexico: A Simulation-Based Program in Obstetric and Neonatal Emergencies and Team Training. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):1–9.
Badran IG. Knowledge, attitude and practice the three pillars of excellence and wisdom: a place in the medical profession [Internet]. Vol. 1, EMHJ - Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 1995. p. 8–16. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/116905/emhj_1995_1_1_8_16.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Minkler M, Wallerstein NB. Improving Health Through Community Organization and Community Building. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education Theory, Research, and Practice. 3er Editio. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 279–311.
Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1(1):77–100.
Meadows L, Morse J. Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In: Morse J, Swanson J, Kuzel A, editors. The nature of evidence in qualitative inquiry. CA: Sage; 2001. pp. 187–202.
Federay J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Int J Qual Methods [Internet]. 2006;5(1). Available from: http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/fereday.pdf.
Strauss A, Corbin J. Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Medellín: Contus; 2002.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105–12.
Goueslard K, Cottenet J, Roussot A, Clesse C, Sagot P, Quantin C. How did episiotomy rates change from 2007 to 2014? Population-based study in France. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth [Internet]. 2018 Jun 4;18(1):208. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866103.
Schantz C, Sim KL, Ly EM, Barennes H, Sudaroth S, Goyet S. Reasons for routine episiotomy: A mixed-methods study in a large maternity hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Reprod Health Matters [Internet]. 2015 Jan 1;23(45):68–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.06.012.
Goldberg J, Hyslop T, Tolosa JE, Sultana C. Racial differences in severe perineal lacerations after vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Apr;188(4):1063–7.
Diniz SG. Que valores escolhemos nesse ritual? Rev Estud Fem [Internet]. 2002 Jul;10(2):523–7. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-026X2002000200023&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Klein MC, Kaczorowski J, Robbins JM, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, Joshi AK. Physicians’ beliefs and behaviour during a randomized controlled trial of episiotomy: consequences for women in their care. CMAJ. 1995 Sep;153(6):769–79.
Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. Episiotomy knowledge, attitudes and practice : a cross- sectional survey of four public Israeli hospitals and review of the literature. Evid Based Midwifery [Internet]. 2015;13:138–42. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b00f/f9e1f5524ec5bb9254e7177f3478dd29a598.pdf.
Harrison RF, Brennan M, North PM, Reed JV, Wickham EA. Is routine episiotomy necessary? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Jun;288(6435):1971–5.
Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Sep;289(6445):587–90.
Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan;(1):CD000081.
Rockner G, Wahlberg V, Olund A. Episiotomy and perineal trauma during childbirth. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 1989;14:264–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1989.tb03412.x.
Kettle C, Tohill S. Perineal care. BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Sep;2008.
De la Rosa-Várez Z, Rivas-Castillo MT, Alguacil Sánchez MV. Maniobras de protección perineal: manejo expectante frente a manejo activo. Revisión de la bibliografía. Matronas profesión [Internet]. 2013;14:19–23. Available from: http://www.federacion-matronas.org/rs/1019/d112d6ad-54ec-438b-9358-4483f9e98868/0d3/fd/1/filename/revision-maniobras-14-1.pdf.
Correa Junior MD, Passini Junior R. Selective Episiotomy: Indications, Techinique, and Association with Severe Perineal Lacerations. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016 Jun;38(6):301–7.
Muraca GM, Liu S, Sabr Y, Lisonkova S, Skoll A, Brant R, et al. Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Can Med Assoc J [Internet]. 2019 Oct 21;191(42):E1149 LP-E1158. Available from: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/191/42/E1149.abstract.
ACOG. Practice Bulletin. No. 165: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2016 Jul;128(1):e1–15.
NICE. Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies (Clinical guideline [CG190]) [Internet]. UK; 2017. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190.
Kupersmith J. Quality of care in teaching hospitals: a literature review. Acad Med. 2005 May;80(5):458–66.
Ayanian JZ, Weissman JS. Teaching hospitals and quality of care: a review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2002;80(3):569–93. v.
Shahian DM, Nordberg P, Meyer GS, Blanchfield BB, Mort EA, Torchiana DF, et al. Contemporary performance of U.S. teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Acad Med. 2012 Jun;87(6):701–8.
Kozhimannil KB, Karaca-Mandic P, Blauer-Peterson CJ, Shah NT, Snowden JM. Uptake and Utilization of Practice Guidelines in Hospitals in the United States: the Case of Routine Episiotomy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf [Internet]. 2017 Jan 1;43(1):41–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.002.
Eckman A, Ramanah R, Gannard E, Clement MC, Collet G, Courtois L, et al. Évaluation d’une politique restrictive d’épisiotomie avant et après les recommandations du Collège national des gynécologues obstétriciens français. J Gynécologie Obs Biol la Reprod. 2010;39(1):37–42.
Reinbold D, Éboue C, Morello R, Lamendour N, Herlicoviez M, Dreyfus M. De l’impact des RPC pour réduire le taux d ’ épisiotomie. J Gynecol Obstet Biol la Reprod [Internet]. 2012;41(1):62–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2011.08.006.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999 Oct;282(15):1458–65.
Joshi A, Acharya R. Perineal outcome after restrictive use of episiotomy in primi-gravidas. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2009;48(176):269–72.
Lai CY, Cheung HW, Hsi Lao TT, Lau TK, Leung TY. Is the policy of restrictive episiotomy generalisable? A prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009 Dec;22(12):1116–21.
Zhang-Rutledge K, Clark SL, Denning S, Timmins A, Dildy GA, Gandhi M. An Initiative to Reduce the Episiotomy Rate: Association of Feedback and the Hawthorne Effect With Leapfrog Goals. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;130(1):146–50.
Pronovost PJ. Enhancing physicians’ use of clinical guidelines. JAMA. 2013 Dec;310(23):2501–2.
Althabe F, Bergel E, Cafferata ML, Gibbons L, Ciapponi A, Aleman A, et al. Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;22Suppl 1:42–60.
Flodgren G, Eccles MP, Shepperd S, Scott A, Parmelli E, Beyer FR. An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul;(7):CD009255.
Clesse C, Lighezzolo-Alnot J, De Lavergne S, Hamlin S, Scheffler M. Statistical trends of episiotomy around the world: Comparative systematic review of changing practices. Health Care Women Int [Internet]. 2018 Jun 3;39(6):644–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2018.1445253.
Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998 Sep;7(3):149–58.
World Health Organization. Recommendations for augmentation of labour: highlights and key messages from the World Health Organization’s 2014 global recommendations [Internet]. Geneva; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/augmentation-labour/en/.
Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Fukuzawa RK, Cuthbert A. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul;7:CD003766.

6.SupplMaterial129.08.2020.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 12 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth →

Editorial decision: Minor revision
08 Mar, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
08 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
08 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
13 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
15 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
15 Oct, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
14 Oct, 2020
Editor invited by journal
14 Oct, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Health care workers’ perceptions of episiotomy in the era of respectful maternity care: a qualitative study of an obstetric training program in Mexico

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

1. Background

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

2.2. Participant Selection

2.3. Data Collection

2.4. Data Analysis

3. Results

3.1. Episiotomy as a predictable practice

3.2. Episiotomy as a prophylactic intervention

3.3. Episiotomy: a procedure that resolves problems in the moment

3.4. Episiotomy gives the clinician control

3.5. Episiotomy as a risky practice

3.6. The role of the training program alongside shifts in social norms

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1