Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Dudley, L; Kettle, C; Waterfield, J; Ismail, Khaled M K (2017)
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Journal: BMJ Open
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Postnatal, RD32, Dehiscence, Perineum, Womens experience, Research, 1733, 1694, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1506, 1704, 1725, 1845

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education
Objective: To explore women’s lived experiences of a\ud dehisced perineal wound following childbirth and how\ud they felt participating in a pilot and feasibility\ud randomised controlled trial (RCT).\ud Design: A nested qualitative study using\ud semistructured interviews, underpinned by descriptive\ud phenomenology.\ud Participants and setting: A purposive sample of six\ud women at 6–9 months postnatal who participated in\ud the RCT were interviewed in their own homes.\ud Results: Following Giorgi’s analytical framework the\ud verbatim transcripts were analysed for key themes.\ud Women’s lived experiences revealed 4 emerging themes:\ud (1) Physical impact, with sub-themes focusing upon\ud avoiding infection, perineal pain and the impact of the\ud wound dehiscence upon daily activities; (2)\ud Psychosocial impact, with sub-themes of denial, sense\ud of failure or self-blame, fear, isolation and altered body\ud image; (3) Sexual impact; and (4) Satisfaction with\ud wound healing. A fifth theme ‘participating in the RCT’\ud was ‘a priori’ with sub-themes centred upon\ud understanding the randomisation process, completing\ud the trial questionnaires, attending for hospital\ud appointments and acceptability of the treatment options.\ud Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the\ud first qualitative study to grant women the opportunity to\ud voice their personal experiences of a dehisced perineal\ud wound and their views on the management offered. The\ud powerful testimonies presented disclose the extent of\ud morbidity experienced while also revealing a strong\ud preference for a treatment option.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Methods and materials used in perineal repair. Guideline No. 23. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press. Kettle C, O'Brien PMS, 2004.
    • 2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Postnatal care: routine postnatal care for women and their babies: NICE clinical guideline No 37. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2006.
    • 3. Steen M. Perineal tears and episiotomy: how do wounds heal? Br J Midwifery 2007;15:273-80.
    • 4. Johnson A, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Obstetric perineal wound infection: is there underreporting? Br J Nurs 2012;21:S28, S30, S32-5.
    • 5. Hankins GD, Hauth JC, Gilstrap LC III, et al. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:48-51.
    • 6. Ramin SM, Ramus RM, Little BB, et al. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence associated with infection. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;167(Pt 1):1104-7.
    • 7. Uygur D, Yesildaglar N, Kis S, et al. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;44:244-6.
    • 8. Ajibade F, De la Horra A, Street P, et al. Surveillance of perineal breakdown during childbirth: essential audit EP9.140. BJOG 2013;120(Suppl 1):476-7.
    • 9. Bharathi A, Reddy DB, Kote GS. A prospective randomized comparative study of vicryl rapide versus chromic catgut for episiotomy repair. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7:326-30.
    • 10. Williams MK, Chames MC. Risk factors for the breakdown of perineal laceration repair after vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:755-9.
    • 11. Sleep J. Perineal care: a series of five randomised controlled trials. In: Robinson S, Thomson AM, eds. Midwives research and childbirth, volume 2. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991:199-251.
    • 12. Priddis H, Dahlen H, Schmied V. Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma: a meta-ethnographic synthesis. J Adv Nurs 2013;69:748-59.
    • 13. Priddis H, Schmied V, Dahlen H. Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma: a qualitative study. BMC Women's Health 2014;14:32.
    • 14. Way S. A qualitative study exploring women's personal experiences of their perineum after childbirth: expectations, reality and returning to normality. Midwifery 2012;28:e712-19.
    • 15. Herron-Marx S, Williams A, Hicks C. A Q methodology study of womens experience of enduring postnatal perineal and pelvic floor morbidity. Midwifery 2007;23:322-34.
    • 16. Williams A, Lavender T, Richmond DH, et al. Women's experiences after a third degree obstetric anal sphincter tear: a qualitative study. Birth 2005;32:129-36.
    • 17. Salmon D. A feminist analysis of women's experiences of perineal trauma in the immediate post-delivery period. Midwifery 1999;15:247-56.
    • 18. Dudley L, Kettle C, Thomas P, et al. Perineal re-suturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound (PREVIEW): A pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;6:e012766. doi:10.1136/bmjopen2016-012766
    • 19. Cluett E, Bluff R. Principles and practice of research in midwifery. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2006.
    • 20. Mapp T. Understanding phenomenology: the lived experience. Br J Midwifery 2008;16:308-11.
    • 21. Rees C. Introduction to research for midwives. 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2011.
    • 22. Snow S. Nothing ventured, nothing gained: a journey into phenomenology ( part one). Br J Midwifery 2009;17:288-90.
    • 23. Husserl E. Cartesian meditations: an introduction to phenomenology. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.
    • 24. Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. London: SAGE, 1994.
    • 25. Parahoo K. Nursing research: principles, process and issues. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Press, 2006.
    • 26. Jasper M. Using reflective writing within research. J Res Nurs 2005;10:247-60.
    • 27. Wall C, Glenn S, Mitchinson S, et al. Using a reflective diary to develop bracketing skills during a phenomenological investigation. Nurse Res 2004;11:20-9.
    • 28. Smith BA. Ethical and methodologic benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic-phenomenologic research. Image J Nurs Sch 1999;31:359-63.
    • 29. Britten N. Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 1995;311:251-3.
    • 30. Morse JM. Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook for qualitative research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 1994:220-35.
    • 31. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59-82.
    • 32. Morris E, Burkett K. Mixed methodologies: a new research paradigm or enhanced quantitative paradigm. Online J Cult Competence Nurs Healthc 2011;1:27-36.
    • 33. Colaizzi PF. Psychological research as a phenomenologist views it. In: Valle RS, King M, eds. Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
    • 34. Giorgi A. Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985:48-71.
    • 35. Van Kaam AL. Existential foundations of psychology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1966.
    • 36. Giorgi A. An Application of phenomenological method in psychology. In: Giorgi A, Fischer C, Murray E, eds. Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1975:82-103.
    • 37. Ziebland S, McPherson A. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx ( personal experiences of health and illness). Med Educ 2006;40:405-14.
    • 38. Ryan G, Bernard H. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 2003;15:85-109.
    • 39. Mercer RT. Becoming a mother versus maternal role attainment. J Nurs Scholarsh 2004;36:226-32.
    • 40. Walsh D. Perineal care should be a feminist issue: part eight. Br J Midwifery 2000;8:731-7.
    • 41. Li WY, Liabsuetrakul T, Stray-Pedersen B. Effect of mode of delivery on perceived risks of maternal health outcomes among expectant parents: a cohort study in Beijing, China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:12.
    • 42. Perkins E, Tohill S, Kettle C, et al. Women's views of important outcomes following perineal repair. BJOG 2008;115(Suppl 1): 67-253.
    • 43. Albers L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, et al. Distribution of genital tract trauma in childbirth and related postnatal pain. Birth 1999;26:11-17.
    • 44. Macarthur AJ, Macarthur C. Incidence, severity and determinants of perineal pain after vaginal delivery: ∼a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1199-204.
    • 45. Thakar R, Sultan AH. Postpartum problems and the role of a perineal care clinic. In: Sultan AH, Thakar R, Fenner D, eds. Perineal and anal sphincter trauma. London: Springer, 2009:65-79.
    • 46. Ganapathy R, Bardis NS, Lamont RF. Secondary repair of the perineum following childbirth. J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;28:608-13.
    • 47. Barrett G, Pendry E, Peacock J, et al. Women's sexual health after childbirth. BJOG 2000;107:186-95.
    • 48. Glazener CMA. Women's health after delivery. In: Henderson C, Bick D, eds. Perineal care: an international issue. London: Quay Books Division, MA Healthcare Limited, 2005:11-17.
    • 49. Wray J. No sex please, we're British midwives. Pract Midwife 2009;12:4.
    • 50. Dixon-Woods M, Tarrant C. Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2215-22.
    • 51. Jackson CJ, Dixon-Woods M, Eborall H, et al. Women's views and experiences of a patient preference trial in surgery: a qualitative study of the CARPET1 trial. Clin Trials 2010;7:696-704.
    • 52. Townsend A, Cox SM. Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:40.
    • 53. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 3rd edn. Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education, 2009.
    • 54. Gethin G, Clune-Mulvaney C. Understanding research part four: qualitative research. Wounds UK 2009;5:111-15.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok