Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39092580›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Consent for interventions during childbirth: A national population-based study.

Marianne Jacques, Anne Alice Chantry, Anne Evrard, Nathalie Lelong, Camille Le Ray, ENP2021 Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Consent for interventions during childbirth: A national population-based study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marianne JacquesUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3692-1197
Anne Alice ChantryUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Paris, France.
Anne EvrardCollectif Interassociatif Autour de la Naissance (CIANE), Paris, France.
Nathalie LelongUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Paris, France.
Camille Le RayUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), Paris, France.
ENP2021 Study Group

Funding

French Ministry of HealthFrench National Public Health AgencyMustela Fundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the frequency and determinants of medical interventions during childbirth without women's consent at the population level.

methodsThe nationwide cross-sectional Enquête Nationale Périnatale 2021 provided a representative sample of women who delivered in metropolitan France with a 2-month postpartum follow-up (n = 7394). Rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of interventions during childbirth (oxytocin administration, episiotomy or emergency cesarean section) without consent were calculated. Associations with maternal, obstetric, and organizational characteristics were assessed using robust variance Poisson regressions, after multiple imputation for missing covariates, and weighted to account for 2-month attrition.

resultsWomen reporting failure to seek consent were 44.7% (CI: 42.6-47.0) for oxytocin administration, 60.2% (CI: 55.4-65.0) for episiotomy, and 36.6% (CI: 33.3-40.0) for emergency cesarean birth. Lack of consent for oxytocin was associated with maternal birth abroad (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06-1.36), low education level, and increased cervical dilation at oxytocin initiation, whereas women with a birth plan reported less frequently lack of consent (aPR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.92). Delivery assisted by an obstetrician was more often associated with lack of consent for episiotomy (aPR 1.46; 95% CI: 1.11-1.94 for spontaneous delivery and aPR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.13-1.72 for instrumental delivery, reference: spontaneous delivery with a midwife). Cesarean for fetal distress was associated with failure to ask for consent for emergency cesarean delivery (aPR 1.58; 95% CI: 1.28-1.96).

conclusionWomen frequently reported that perinatal professionals failed to seek consent for interventions during childbirth. Reorganization of care, particularly in emergency contexts, training focusing on adequate communication and promotion of birth plans are necessary to improve women's involvement in decision making during childbirth.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionEpisiotomyInformed ConsentOxytocinAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFranceHumansParturitionPregnancyYoung AdultOxytocindeliveryfacility‐based maternity careinformed consent/statistics and numerical datamaternal health servicesobstetrics and gynecologypatient‐centred careshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID39092580
PMCPMC11649875

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.