Cesarean section: Norwegian women do as obstetricians do - Not as obstetricians say

Birth

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 117-120

  Finsen, Vilhjalmur ^a,b,e   Storeheier, Andreas Hopstock ^c   Aasland, Olaf Gjerløw ^d  

^a Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c Levanger Hospital   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^e TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Incidence; Obstetricians; Physicians

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NORWAY; OBSTETRIC CARE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; QUESTIONNAIRES; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 44349093092     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00224.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bergsjø P. What is a suitable number of cesarean sections? (In Norwegian) Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1998 118 : 4630.
2. Backe B, Heggstad T, Lie T. Has the cesarean section epidemic reached Norway? (In Norwegian) Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003 123 : 1522 1524.
3. Bakoulia C, Matsaniotis N. Why choose caesarean section? Lancet 2001 357 : 636.
4. Mancuso A, de Vivo A, Fanara G, et al. Women's preference on mode of delivery in southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol 2006 85 : 694 699.
5. Cyr RM. Myth of ideal cesarean section rate. Commentary and historical perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006 194 : 932 926.
6. Resnik R. Can a 29.9% cesarean delivery rate possibly be justified? Obstet Gynecol 2006 107 : 752 754.
7. Schnapp C, Sepulveda W. Rise in caesarean births in Chile. Lancet 1997 349 : 1029.
8. Finger C. Caesarean section rates skyrocket in Brazil. Lancet 2003 362 : 628.
9. Anonymous. Caesarean section on the rise (Editorial). Lancet 2000 356 : 1697.
10. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006 367 : 1819 1829.
11. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Obstetricians' personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 1996 347 : 544.
12. Groom KM, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002 100 : 185 188.
13. Gabbe SG, Holzman GB. Obstetricians' choice of delivery. Lancet 2001 357 : 722.
14. van Roosmalen J. Unnecessary caesarean section should be avoided. BMJ 1999 318 : 121.
15. Goonen R, Tamir A, Degani S. Obstetricians' opinion regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002 99 : 577 580.
16. Bergholt T, Østberg B, Legarth J, Weber T. Danish obstetricians' personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: A nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004 83 : 262 266.
17. Backe B, Salvesen KÅ, Sviggum O. Norwegian obstetricians prefer vaginal route of delivery. Lancet 2002 359 : 629.
18. Storeheier AH, Aasland OG, Finsen V. Does insight influence the frequency of operations? (In Norwegian) Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005 125 : 718 720.
19. Finsen V, Storeheier AH. Scratch lottery tickets are a poor incentive to respond to mailed questionnaires. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006 6 : 19.
20. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000 356 : 1677 1680.
21. Bewley S. Obstetricians' views on caesarean section versus vaginal birth. Lancet 1996 347 : 1189.