Caesarean section on maternal request - a qualitative study of stakeholders´viewsstakeholders´views

Background Caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR) raises ethical and clinical challenges despite Sweden’s low overall caesarean section (CS) rate. National written recommendations are restrictive, yet regional differences suggest unequal care. While previous research has focused on women and healthcare professionals, little is known about the views of policymakers and other key stakeholders. The aim of this study was to investigate how stakeholders in the Swedish healthcare system view CSMR in relation to medical considerations, individual autonomy and societal values. Methods A qualitative study with an inductive approach was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Sixteen stakeholders were recruited, including regional politicians, policymakers, national authority representatives, and members from organisations and associations with relevant interest and expertise in the field. Results Five themes were generated: (1) Caesarean section is a valid way of giving birth for some; (2) The right to choose and the decision process are complex issues; (3) Individual options for childbirth are desirable; (4) There is a lack of trust in maternity care; (5) Economic and ethical challenges in maternity care exist. The participants viewed CSMR as a legitimate option for some women, despite the increased medical risks, which were considered concerning but not disqualifying. Support and guidance in decision-making were considered essential by the participants. They valued continuity in care and emotional support highly. The participants expressed the views that distrust in Swedish maternity care was linked to media portrayals and inconsistent handling of CSMR. Economic and ethical concerns included questions of resource allocation and the scope of public healthcare responsibilities. The option to pay privately for a planned CS was broadly rejected by the participants. Conclusions This study highlights the complexity of CSMR and its varied perspectives. While individual risks may be low, population-level risks could rise with increased prevalence, and the perception of risk varies depending on perspective. Both medical and psychological risks should inform decisions, with counselling seen as crucial by the participants. Continuity of midwife care models may offer an alternative to CSMR for some. Stakeholders are key to ensuring clear guidelines, equal care, and trust in the system.