Faktor-faktor yang Mendukung dan Menghambat Dilakukannya Versi Luar pada Kehamilan dengan Presentasi Bokong di Yogyakarta

https://doi.org/10.22146/jkr.59811

I Made Pariartha(1*), Rukmono Siswishanto(2), Nuring Pangastuti(3)

(1) Departemen Obstetri dan Ginekologi, FK-KMK, UGM
(2) Departemen Obstetri dan Ginekologi, FK-KMK, UGM
(3) Departemen Obstetri dan Ginekologi, FK-KMK, UGM
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: Guidelines recommend that external cephalic version (ECV) should be offer to all women with fetus in breech presentation at term. Many literature show external cephalic version can lowering c-section rate caused by breech presentation.

Objective: To explore the determinants (barriers and facilitators) affecting obstetricians and gynaecologists to do external cephalic version at Yogyakarta.

Method: Explanatory mixed methods design with quantitative-qualitative model. Survey with validated questionnaire and in-depth interview with semi-structured question was done January 2019 until August 2019.

Results and Discussion: 72 respondents (83.7%) was responded to questionnaire and in-depth interview was done to 12 respondents. Adherence to ECV guideline was varied: counselling (20.8%), advising for ECV (15.3%), and arranged for ECV to for (almost) all their clients (16.6%). Although 76.4% of respondents considered ECV to be an effective treatment for preventing caesarean childbirth, only 18.1% respondents agreed that every client with breech presentation should undergo ECV. Self-efficacy was the most important determinant influencing adherence. In-depth interview shows several determinants to performed or did not performed ECV: skill of clinicians, guideline for ECV, facility to emergency c-section, ECV characteristic, cost, other methods for breech presentation, perception about ECV in lowering c-section rate, perceived ECV risk and patient preferences.

Conclusion: Most respondents agreed that ECV was effective intervention to reduce caesarean childbirth, but adherence to counselling, advising and arranging ECV for clients still very low. Several determinants influenced obstetrician and gynaecologists to perform or did not perform ECV.

Keywords: External cephalic version; breech presentation; determinants.


Keywords


External cephalic version; breech presentation; determinants.

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239): 1375-1383. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3
  2. Carayol M, Foidart J, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option ? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium Franc. AJOG. 2006;194:1002-1011. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.817
  3. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ. OBSTETRIC CARE CONSENSUS: Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery. Am Coll Obstet Gynecol. 2016;(3):1-19.
  4. Royal College of Obstetricians and gynecologist. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation. R Coll Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;(20):1-8.
  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG. 2017;(20). doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14465
  6. Committe on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. ACOG. 2006;(3):6-8.
  7. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R. Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation. JOGC. 2009;(226):557-566.
  8. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of breech presentation at term. 2016;(July):1-14.
  9. Reichenbach L, Yuan J, Herrmann E, Louwen F. Delivery mode and neonatal outcome after a trial of external cephalic version ( ECV ): a prospective trial of vaginal breech versus cephalic delivery. Arch Gynecol Obs. 2013;287:663-668. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2639-1
  10. Hofmeyr G., Kulier R, West H. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term ( Review ). Cochrane Libr. 2016;(4). doi: 10.1002 /14651858.CD000083 .pub3. www.cochranelibrary.com
  11. Rosman ANA, Vlemmix FF, Fleuren MAHM, et al. Patients and professionals barriers and facilitators to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term , a qualitative analysis in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):324-330. doi: 10.1016/j.midw. 2013.03.013
  12. Yogev Y, Horowitz E, Ben-Horoush B, Chen R, Kaplan B. Changing Attitudes Toward Mode of Delivery and External Cephalic Version in Breech Presentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2003;58(7):438-455.
  13. Vlemmix F, Rosman AN, Fleuren MAH, et al. Implementation of the external cephalic version in breech delivery. Dutch national implementation study of external cephalic version. 2010.
  14. Rosman AN, Vlemmix F, Beuckens A, et al. Facilitators and barriers to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term among health care providers in the Netherlands : A quantitative analysis. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):e145-e150. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.01.002
  15. Haagen EC, Nelen WL., Hermens RPM., Braat DD., Grol RPT., Kremer JA. Barriers to physician adherence to a subfertility guideline. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3301-3306. doi: 10.1093 /humrep/dei220



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jkr.59811

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1954 | views : 4409

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Kesehatan Reproduksi Indexed by:

 

 



SEKRETARIAT JURNAL KESEHATAN REPRODUKSI
Departemen Obstetri dan Ginekologi, FK-KMK, UGM/RS Dr. Sardjito
Jl. Kesehatan No. 1, Sekip Utara, Yogyakarta 55281
Tlp: (0274) 511329 / Faks: (0274) 544003
Email: jurnal.kesehatanreproduksi@ugm.ac.id
Cp: Dwi Astuti +6281802698043