Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin-to-skin contact between mother and infant immediately after birth is recommended regardless of delivery method; however, it is less common after cesarean delivery. We aimed to describe and compare women's experiences of cesarean birth with and without skin-to-skin contact at an urban tertiary care hospital. METHODS: In this hermeneutic phenomenologic study, we used semistructured telephone interviews from 2015 to 2018 to interview a convenience sample of women who delivered at term by scheduled skin-to-skin cesarean birth at an urban tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Ontario. Women were invited to participate if they had had a previous planned or unplanned cesarean birth and a scheduled skin-to-skin cesarean birth between 2013 and 2017. Participants were excluded if they had antenatally diagnosed conditions, they delivered before 37 weeks, they had general anesthesia, their condition was unstable at the time of surgery, a skin-to-skin cesarean birth was not possible or they declined skin-to-skin cesarean birth. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by means of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten women were interviewed 1-19 months postpartum. Four central themes emerged: support for skin-to-skin cesarean birth (women feeling supported by their families and health care providers); control (participants experiencing greater control during their skin-to-skin cesarean birth); connection with the infant, which enabled women to be active participants in their delivery, enhanced bonding and intimacy, facilitated breastfeeding and bolstered confidence during early parenthood; and logistic considerations, with participants recognizing that skin-to-skin cesarean birth required additional resources. INTERPRETATION: These findings refine what is known about skin-to-skin cesarean birth and provide a critical perspective, that of mothers. They support the transformation of traditional operating room dynamics to a more patient-centred environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".