References

References

1. Bick D et al 2017. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in nulliparous women with an epidural (BUMPES). Health Technol. Assess. 21, 1–176.

2. Association of Ontario Midwives & Contributors, 2019. Emergency Skills Workshop Manual, 6th ed. AOM.

3. Aten L et al 2017. LVOV richtlijn Baring in stuit.

4. Gerhard Nielsen, K., 2019. How to build a breech birth practice, in: Upright Breech Birth Conference, 5-6 April , Aabenraa, Denmark.

5. Angood P B et al 2010. Blueprint for action: steps toward a high-quality, high-value maternity care system. Womens Health Issues 20, S18-49. 

6. Guittier M-J 2011. Breech presentation and choice of mode of childbirth: a qualitative study of women’s experiences. Midwifery 27, e208-13.

7. Homer C S E et al 2015. Women’s experiences of planning a vaginal breech birth in Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15, 89.

8. Petrovska K et al 2016. Supporting Women Planning a Vaginal Breech Birth: An International Survey. Birth 43, 353–357. 

9. Sloman R et al 2016. Midwives’ views, experiences and feelings of confidence surrounding vaginal breech birth: A qualitative study. Midwifery 41, 61–67.

10. van Roosmalen J, Meguid T, 2014. The dilemma of vaginal breech delivery worldwide. Lancet 383, 1863–1864.

11. Petrovska K et al 2017. ‘Stress, anger, fear and injustice’: An international qualitative survey of women’s experiences planning a vaginal breech birth. Midwifery 44, 41–47.

12. Lightfoot, K., 2018. Women’s experiences of undiagnosed breech birth and the effects on future childbirth decisions and expectations. PhD Thesis. Univ of the W of England.

13. Menakaya, U.A., Trivedi, A., 2013. Qualitative assessment of women’s experiences with ECV. Women and Birth 26, e41–e44.

14. Say R et al 2013. A qualitative interview study exploring pregnant women’s and health professionals’ attitudes to external cephalic version. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13, 4.

15. Watts N P et al 2016. This baby is not for turning: Women’s experiences of attempted external cephalic version. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 16, 248.

16. NICE, 2011. Caesarean Section: NICE Clinical Guideline. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health.

17. Bogner G et al 2014. Patient satisfaction with childbirth after external cephalic version. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 289, 523–31.

18. Yeoh S G J et al 2018. Experience and confidence in vaginal breech and twin deliveries among obstetric trainees and new specialists in Australia and New Zealand. Aust. New Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12931

19. Hofmeyr G J et al 2015. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Art. No.: CD000166. 

20. Impey L et al, on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2017. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG.

21. Kok M et al 2008. Expectant parents’ preferences for mode of delivery and trade-offs of outcomes for breech presentation. Patient Educ. Couns. 72, 305–310.

22. Abdessalami S et al 2017. The influence of counseling on the mode of breech birth: A single-center observational prospective study in The Netherlands. Midwifery 55, 96–102.

23. Mohajer M 2014. Results of a telephone survey. Management of the Term Breech Conference, RCOG, 14 October 2014.

24. Dresner-Barnes H, Bodle J, 2014. Vaginal breech birth – the phoenix arising from the ashes. Pract. Midwife 17, 30–33.

25. Hickland P et al 2018. A novel and dedicated multidisciplinary service to manage breech presentation at term; 3 years of experience in a tertiary care maternity unit. J. Matern. Neonatal Med. 31, 3002–3008.

26. Kidd L et al 2014. Development of a dedicated breech service in a London teaching hospital. Arch. Dis. Child. – Fetal Neonatal Ed. 99, A20–A21.

27. Louwen F et al 2017. Does breech delivery in an upright position instead of on the back improve outcomes and avoid cesareans? Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 136, 151–161.

28. Reitter A et al 2018. Is it reasonable to establish an independent obstetric leadership in a small hospital and does it result in measurable changes in quality of maternity care? Z. Geburtshilfe Neonatol.

29. NHS Digital, 2018. NHS Maternity Statistics, 2017-2018 Hospital Episode Statistics.

30. MBRRACE, 2018. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care: Lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2014-2016.

31. Lafitte A-S et al 2018. Rate of caesarean sections according to the Robson classification: Analysis in a French perinatal network. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 47, 39–44.

32. Hofmeyr, G.J., Kulier, R., West, H.M., 2015. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane database Syst. Rev. CD000083.

33. Hemelaar J et al 2015. The Impact of an ECV Service is Limited by Antenatal Breech Detection: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Birth 42, 165–72. 

34. Pergialiotis V et al 2014. First versus second stage C/S maternal and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 175, 15–24.

35. Kotaska A 2011. Commentary: routine cesarean section for breech: the unmeasured cost. Birth 38, 162–164. 

36. Magro M 2017. Five years of cerebral palsy claims: A thematic review of NHS Resolution data.

37. Bogner G et al 2015. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J. Perinat. Med. 43, 707–13.

38. Marko K I et al 2015. Cesarean Delivery Prevention: The Vaginal Breech Initiative at the George Washington University Hospital. Obstet. Gynecol. 125, 42S.

39. Johnston K et al 2018. Royal Jubilee Maternity Services, Belfast: Breech Clinic Report, in: Breech Birth Network Training Day, 28 November 2018.

40. Su M et al 2003. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in the Term Breech Trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 189, 740–745.

41. Melo P et al 2018. External cephalic version at term: a cohort study of 18 years’ experience. BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1–7.

42. Vlemmix et al 2014. Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 93, 888–896.

43. Rosman A N et al 2016. Mode of childbirth and neonatal outcome after external cephalic version: A prospective cohort study. Midwifery 39, 44–48.

44. Wastlund D et al 2019. Screening for breech presentation using universal late-pregnancy ultrasonography: A prospective cohort study and cost effectiveness analysis. PLOS Med. 16, e1002778.

45. Jensen V M, Wüst M, 2014. Can Caesarean section improve child and maternal health? The case of breech babies. J. Health Econ. 39, 289–302.

46. Hannah M E et al 2000. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356, 1375–1383.

48. Ford I, Norrie J, 2016. Pragmatic Trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 454–463.

49. Sinha I P et al 2011. Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review. PLoS Med. 8, e1000393.

50. Curran G M et al 2012. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med. Care 50, 217–26.

51. Craig P et al 2013. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 50, 587–592.

52. Moore G F et al 2015. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 350, h1258.

53. Proctor E et al 2011. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm. Policy Ment. Heal. Ment. Heal. Serv. Res. 38, 65–76. 

54. Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., Francis, J.J., 2017. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17, 88. 

55. Hoffmann T C et al 2014. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 348, g1687.

56. Gannon, B. (2017). The Feasibility Study: A Health Economics Perspective. Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment: Italian; Northern Europe and Spanish, 4(1), grhta.5000254. 

57. Herdman M et al 2011. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20, 1727–1736.

58. Borbolla Foster A et al 2014. Lessons to be learnt in managing the breech presentation at term: An 11-year single-centre retrospective study. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 54, 333–9.

59. Reitter A et al (2014). Does pregnancy and/or shifting positions create more room in a woman’s pelvis? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology211(6), 662.e1-662.e9. 

60. Vlemmix, F et al (2014). Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica,93(9), 888–896.

61. Vlemmix F (2010). Implementation of the external cephalic version in breech delivery. Dutch national implementation study of external cephalic version. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth10, 20.