Preferences for mode of delivery in nulliparous Argentinean women: a qualitative study

Reproductive Health

José M Belizán⁶  Fernando Althabe⁶  Lila Arnaud¹  Olivia H Chang²  Mercedes Colomar³  Nina Zamberlin⁵  Agustina Mazzoni⁶  Nancy H Liu⁴ 

[1] Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 1440 Canal St, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA;Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70112, USA;Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit (UNICEM), Hospital de Clinicas, Avda. Italia s/n, Montevideo, Uruguay;Department of Psychiatry-SFGH, University of California, San Francisco, Suite 7M. 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA;Center for the Study of State and Society (CEDES), Sanchez de Bustamante 27. C1173AAA, Buenos Aires, Argentina;Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Dr. Emilio Ravignani 2024. C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina

关键词: Qualitative;    Mode of delivery;    Women’s preferences;    Cesarean section;   

Others  :  811880
DOI  :  10.1186/1742-4755-10-2

 received in 2012-05-25, accepted in 2013-01-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Over the last three decades, cesarean section (CS) rates have been rising around the world despite no associated improvement in maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. The role of women’s preferences for mode of delivery in contributing to the high CS rate remains controversial; however these preferences are difficult to assess, as they are influenced by culture, knowledge of risk and benefits, and personal and social factors. In this qualitative study, our objective was to understand women’s preferences and motivational factors for mode of delivery. This information will inform the development and design of an assessment aimed at understanding the role of the women’s preferences for mode of delivery.

Methods

We conducted 4 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 12 in-depth interviews with pregnant women in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 4 large non-public and public hospitals. Our sample included 29 nulliparous pregnant women aged 18–35 years old, with single pregnancies over 32 weeks of gestational age, without pregnancies resulting from assisted fertility, without known pre-existing medical illness or diseases diagnosed during pregnancy, without an indication of elective cesarean section, and who are not health professionals. FGDs and interviews followed a pre-designed guide based on the health belief model and social cognitive theory of health decisions and behaviors.

Results

Most of the women preferred vaginal delivery (VD) due to cultural, personal, and social factors. VD was viewed as normal, healthy, and a natural rite of passage from womanhood to motherhood. Pain associated with vaginal delivery was viewed positively. In contrast, women viewed CS as a medical decision and often deferred decisions to medical staff in the presence of medical indication.

Conclusions

These findings converge with quantitative and qualitative studies showing that women prefer towards VD for various cultural, personal and social reasons. Actual CS rates appear to diverge from women’s preferences and reasons are discussed.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Liu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Arias E, MacDorman M, Strobino D, Guyer B: Annual summary of vital statistics—2002. Pediatrics 2003, 112:1215-1230.
• [2]Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S: Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999, 319:1397-1400.
• [3]Belizan JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML: Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007, 18:485-486.
• [4]Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F: Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206:331. e1-19
• [5]Anon: Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2:436-437.
• [6]Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E: Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006, 33:270-277.
• [7]Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M: Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007, 21:98-113.
• [8]Belizan JM, Cafferata ML, Althabe F: Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth 2006, 33:167-169.
• [9]Gamble JA, Health M, Creedy DK: Women’s preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001, 28:101-110.
• [10]Osis MJ, Padua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faundes A: The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001, 75(Suppl 1):59-66.
• [11]Pang SM, Leung DT, Leung TY, Lai CY, Lau TK, Chung TK: Determinants of preference for elective caesarean section in Hong Kong Chinese pregnant women. Hong Kong Med J 2007, 13:100-105.
• [12]Chong ES, Mongelli M: Attitudes of Singapore women toward cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003, 80:189-194.
• [13]Gamble J, Creedy DK, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S: A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section. Birth 2007, 34:331-341.
• [14]Barbosa GP, Giffin K, Angulo-Tuesta A, de Souza GA, Chor D, D’Orsi E, Goncalves Vaz dos Reis AC: Cesarean sections: who wants them and under what circumstances? Cad Saude Publica 2003, 19(6):1611-1620.
• [15]Bracken JN, Dryfhout VL, Goldenhar LM, Pauls RN: Preferences and concerns for delivery: an antepartum survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008, 19(11):1527-1531.
• [16]Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Fanara G, Settineri S, Triolo O, Giacobbe A: Women's preference on mode of delivery in Southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006, 85(6):694-699.
• [17]Rosenstock IM: The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974, 2:354-386.
• [18]Bandura A: Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health 1998, 13:623-649.
• [19]Pakenham S, Chamberlain SM, Smith GN: Women's views on elective primary caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006, 28(12):1089-1094.
• [20]Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu N, Bonotti A, Gibbons L, Sánchez A, Belizán J: Women’s preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG 2010, 118(4):391-399.