Effect of mode of delivery on perceived risks of maternal health outcomes among expectant parents: a cohort study in Beijing, China

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Babill Stray-Pedersen²  Tippawan Liabsuetrakul¹  Wen-Ying Li¹ 

[1] Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand;Division of Women and Children, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

关键词: Vaginal delivery;    Perception;    Couple;    Cesarean delivery;    Birth experience;   

Others  :  1131799
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-12

 received in 2012-09-07, accepted in 2014-01-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Misperceptions regarding maternal health outcomes after vaginal delivery (VD) and cesarean delivery (CD) may contribute to the increasing trend towards CD. The effects of mode of delivery on parents’ perceived risks of health outcomes are unclear. This study aimed to compare the perceived risks of maternal health outcomes among pregnant women and their partners before and after delivery, and to evaluate factors related to inaccurate perceptions among women after delivery.

Methods

Consecutive eligible nulliparous women at 36-40 weeks gestation were approached during antenatal registration for electronic fetal monitoring, regardless of whether CD or VD was planned. Eligible women were aged 18-45 years, received antenatal care and planned delivery at the First Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, and had partners who could be approached. Concerns about 12 maternal health outcomes were identified by literature search and validated using the content validity index. Women and their partners were questioned anonymously about the perceived risks of outcomes after CD and VD before delivery, and the perceived risks of the delivery experienced at 2-3 days after delivery. Perceived risks were compared with reported risks, and factors associated with inaccurate perceptions were evaluated.

Results

Among 272 couples approached, 264 women (97%) and 257 partners (94%) completed the questionnaire both before and after delivery. After CD, the perceived risk of seven health outcomes decreased in women and the perceived risk of two health outcomes increased in partners. After VD, the perceived risk of two outcomes decreased and of one outcome increased in women, and the perceived risk of three outcomes increased in partners. Women perceived higher risks of long-term perineal pain, pelvic organ prolapse, urinary/fecal incontinence, sexual dissatisfaction, and negative impact on the couple’s relationship after VD than after CD (all p < 0.05). CD was the most common factor associated with inaccurate perceptions among women after delivery.

Conclusions

The perceived risks of maternal health outcomes decreased after delivery in women and increased after delivery in their partners. Women continued to have inaccurate perceptions of the risks of health outcomes after delivery, indicating that further education is important.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Li et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Meyers J, Lobis S, Dakkak H: UN process indicators: key to measuring maternal mortality reduction. FMR 2004, 19:16-18.
• [2]Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW, Morris JM, Roberts CL: Epidemiology and trends for Cesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 11:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Feng XL, Xu L, Guo Y, Ronsmans C: Factors influencing rising cesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ 2012, 90:30-39. 39A
• [4]Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, Attygalle DE, Shrestha N, Mori R, Nguyen DH, et al.: Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010, 375:490-499.
• [5]National Institutes of Health: National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 107:1386-1397.
• [6]Zelop C, Heffner LJ: The downside of cesarean delivery: short-and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004, 47:386-393.
• [7]Pang MW, Lee TS, Leung AK, Leung TY, Lau TK, Leung TN: A longitudinal observational study of preference for elective cesarean section among nulliparous Hong Kong Chinese women. BJOG 2007, 114:623-629.
• [8]Kwee A, Cohlen BJ, Kanhai HH, Bruinse HW, Visser GH: Cesarean section on request: a survey in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004, 113:186-190.
• [9]Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S: Obstetricians’ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002, 99:577-580.
• [10]Mungrue K, Nixon C, David Y, Dookwah D, Durga S, Greene K, Mohammed H: Trinidadian women’s knowledge, perceptions, and preferences regarding cesarean section: how do they make choices? Int J Womens Health 2010, 2:387-391.
• [11]Dursun P, Yanik FB, Zeyneloglu HB, Baser E, Kuscu E, Ayhan A: Why women request cesarean section without medical indication? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011, 24:1133-1137.
• [12]Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Karlstrom A, Hildingsson I: Self reported fear of childbirth and its association with women’s birth experience and mode of delivery: a longitudinal population-based study. Women Birth 2011, 25:114-121.
• [13]Gamble JA, Creedy DK: Women’s preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001, 28:101-110.
• [14]Chong ES, Mongelli M: Attitudes of Singapore women toward cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003, 80:189-194.
• [15]Health statistical yearbook of China http://www.nhfpc.gov.cn/htmlfiles/zwgkzt/ptjnj/year2010/index2010.html webcite
• [16]Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007, 30:459-467.
• [17]China statistic yearbook 2011. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2011/html/J1015E.HTM webcite
• [18]Guo XJ: Study on the Efficacy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in Parturients of Chengdu. Master thesis. Sichuan University, Nursing: China National Knowledge Infrastructure; 2007.
• [19]Declercq E, Cunningham DK, Johnson C, Sakala C: Mothers’ reports of postpartum pain associated with vaginal and cesarean deliveries: results of a national survey. Birth 2008, 35:16-24.
• [20]Maharaj D: Puerperal Pyrexia: a review: part II. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007, 62:400-406.
• [21]Wang BS, Zhou LF, Coulter D, Liang H, Zhong Y, Guo YN, Zhu LP, Gao XL, Yuan W, Gao ES: Effects of cesarean section on maternal health in low risk nulliparous women: a prospective matched cohort study in Shanghai, China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010, 10:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, Ellwood DA: Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth. Birth 2002, 29:83-94.
• [23]Brown S, Lumley J: Maternal health after childbirth: results of an Australian population based survey. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998, 105:156-161.
• [24]Larsson C, Kallen K, Andolf E: Cesarean section and risk of pelvic organ prolapse: a nested case–control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 200(243):e241-e244.
• [25]Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S: Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean Section. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:900-907.
• [26]MacArthur C, Glazener CM, Wilson PD, Herbison GP, Gee H, Lang GD, Lancashire R: Obstetric practice and faecal incontinence three months after delivery. BJOG 2001, 108:678-683.
• [27]Clarkson J, Newton C, Bick D, Gyte G, Kettle C, Newburn M, Radford J, Johanson R: Achieving sustainable quality in maternity services–using audit of incontinence and dyspareunia to identify shortfalls in meeting standards. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2001, 1:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Andolf E, Thorsell M, Kallen K: Cesarean delivery and risk for postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction: a nested case–control study of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 203(406):e401-e406.
• [29]Albright CM, Rouse DJ: Adhesion barriers at cesarean delivery: advertising compared with the evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118:157-160.
• [30]Lal M, Pattison HM, Allan TF, Callender R: Does post-cesarean dyspareunia reflect sexual malfunction, pelvic floor and perineal dysfunction? J Obstet Gynaecol 2011, 31:617-630.
• [31]Borders N: After the afterbirth: a critical review of postpartum health relative to method of delivery. J Midwifery Womens Health 2006, 51:242-248.
• [32]Khajehei M, Ziyadlou S, Safari RM, Tabatabaee H, Kashefi F: A comparison of sexual outcomes in primiparous women experiencing vaginal and cesarean births. Indian J Community Med 2009, 34:126-130.
• [33]Xu XY, Yao ZW, Wang HY, Zhou Q, Zhang LW: Women’s postpartum sexuality and delivery types. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2003, 38:219-222.
• [34]Saisto T, Halmesmaki E: Fear of childbirth: a neglected dilemma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003, 82:201-208.
• [35]Premberg A, Carlsson G, Hellstrom AL, Berg M: First-time fathers’ experiences of childbirth–a phenomenological study. Midwifery 2011, 27:848-853.
• [36]Horey D, Weaver J, Russell H: Information for pregnant women about cesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, CD003858.
• [37]Gamble J, Creedy DK, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S: A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section. Birth 2007, 34:331-340.
• [38]Liabsuetrakul T, Petmanee P, Sanguanchua S, Oumudee N: Health system responsiveness for delivery care in Southern Thailand. Int J Qual Health Care 2012, 24:169-175.
• [39]Gamble JA, Creedy DK: Women’s request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 2000, 27:256-263.
• [40]Hanson S, Hunter LP, Bormann JR, Sobo EJ: Paternal fears of childbirth: a literature review. J Perinat Educ 2009, 18:12-20.
• [41]Zhang J, Liu Y, Meikle S, Zheng J, Sun W, Li Z: Cesarean delivery on maternal request in southeast China. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111:1077-1082.