Danish obstetricians' personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: A nation-wide postal survey

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 83, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 262-266

  Bergholt, Thomas ^a,b   Østberg, Birgitte ^a   Legarth, Jesper ^a   Weber, Tom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Danish obstetricians attitude; Elective cesarean section; Maternal request

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILDBIRTH; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; OBSTETRIC CARE; PERINEUM INJURY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; URINE INCONTINENCE;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; OBSTETRICS; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 1542721645     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.0312.x     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Paterson-Browne S, Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II. Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? BMJ 1998; 317: 462-5.
2. Cotzais CS, Paterson-Browne S, Fisk NM. Prospective risk of unexplained stillbirth in singleton pregnancies at term: population based analysis. BMJ 1999; 319: 287-8.
3. Steer P. Caesarean section: an evolving procedure? Br J Obstet Gyneacol 1998; 105: 1052-5.
4. Department of Health. Changing Childbirth: The report of the expert Maternity Group, 1993.
5. Audit Commission. First Class Delivery: Improving Maternity Services in England and Wales. Abingdon: Audit Commission Publications, 1997.
6. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Repro Biol 1997; 73: 1-4.
7. Hornnes PJ. Caesarean section-who makes the decision? Ugeskr Laeger 1999; 161: 5517.
8. Gabbe SG, Holzman GB. Obstetricians' choice of delivery. Lancet 2001; 357: 722.
9. van Roosmalen J. Unnecessary caesarean sections should be avoided. BMJ 1999; 318: 121.
10. Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 476-80.
11. Samuelsson E, Ladfors L, Wennerholm UB, Gareberg B, Nyberg K, Hagberg H. Anal sphincter tears: prospecive study of obstetric risk factors. BJOG 2000; 107: 926-31.
12. de Loeuw JW, Struijk PC, Vierhout ME, Wallenberg HC. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 383-7.
13. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) press, 2001.
14. Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheyne AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J. An investigation of women's involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. BJOG 1999; 106: 213-20.
15. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women's preference for a caesarean section; incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001; 28: 101-10.
16. Impey L, Boylan P. Active management of labour revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 183-7.
17. Mould TA, Chong S, Spencer JA, Gallivan S. Women's involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 1074-7.
18. Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Caesarean section: every woman's right to choose? Cur Op Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 351-5.
19. Wackerhausen S. What is natural? Deciding what to do and not to do in medicine. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 1109-012.