Obstetricians' and midwives' attitudes toward cesarean section

Birth

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 129-135

  Monari, Francesca ^a   Di Mario, Simona ^b   Facchinetti, Fabio ^a   Basevi, Vittorio ^b  

^a University Hospital

^b Local Health Authority of Modena   (Italy)

Author keywords

Attitude; Cesarean section; Midwives; Obstetricians

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; ITALY; MIDWIFE ATTITUDE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MIDWIFERY; NURSE MIDWIVES; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 44349129767     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00226.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. O'Leary C, de Klerk N, Keogh J, et al. Trends in mode of delivery during 1984-2003: Can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications? BJOG 2007 114 : 855 864.
2. Odlind V, Haglund B, Pakkanen M, Otterblad Olausson P. Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973-2000. Trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003 82 : 516 528.
3. Donati S, Grandolfo ME, Andreozzi S. Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth 2003 30 : 89 93.
4. Ministero della Salute. Certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP). Analysis of Birth Event-2004 Data (Analisi dell'evento nascita-dati 2004) (In Italian). Roma : Dipartimento della qualità. Direzione generale sistema informativo di Ufficio direzione statistica, 2007. Accessed June 5, 2007. Available at : http://www.ministerosalute.it/imgs/ C_17_pubblicazioni_642_allegato.pdf.
5. Fantini MP, Stivanello E, Frammartino B, et al. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary caesarean section rates: Need, validity and parsimony. BMC Health Serv Res 2006 6 : 1 10.
6. Potter JE, Berquó E, Perpétuo IH, et al. Unwanted caesarean section among public and private patients in Brazil: Prospective study. BMJ 2001 323 : 1155 1158.
7. Murray SF, Elston MA. The promotion of private health insurance and its implications for the social organisation of healthcare: A case study of private sector obstetric practice in Chile. Sociol Health Illn 2005 27 : 701 721.
8. DeMott RK, Sandmire HF. The Green Bay cesarean section study. The physician factors a determinant of cesarean birth rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990 162 : 1593 1599.
9. Poma PA. Effects of obstetrician characteristic on cesarean delivery rates: a community hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 180 : 1364 1372.
10. Signorelli C, Cattaruzza MS, Osborn JF. Risk factors for caesarean section in Italy: Results of a multicentre study. Public Health 1995 109 : 191 199.
11. Goyert GL, Bottoms SF, Treadwell MC, Nehra PC. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989 320 : 706 709.
12. Bailit JF, Love TE, Mercer B. Rising cesarean rates: Are patients sicker? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 191 : 800 803.
13. Paranjothy S, Frost C, Thomas J. How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences? BJOG 2005 112 : 658 666.
14. Lin HC, Xirasagar S. Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: Policy and research implications. Obstet Gynecol 2004 103 : 128 136.
15. Bettes BA, Coleman VH, Zinberg S, et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: Obstetrician-gynaecologists' knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 2007 109 : 57 66.
16. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, et al. Caesarean section on request: A comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006 113 : 647 656.
17. Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Italy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2004 84 : 169 170.
18. Hildingsson I, Rådestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenström U. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG 2002 109 : 618 623.
19. Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, et al. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: A previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004 103 : 1137 1141.
20. Kingdon C, Baker L, Lavender T. Systematic review of nulliparous women's views of planned cesarean birth: The missing component in the debate about a term cephalic trial. Birth 2006 33 : 229 237.
21. Nerum H, Halvorsen L, Sørlie T, Oian P. Maternal request for cesarean section due to fear of birth: Can it be changed through crisis-oriented counseling? Birth 2006 33 : 221 228.
22. Olatunbosun A, Ravichander A, Turnell RW, Edouard L. The influence of patient preferences and physician practices on cesarean delivery. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2002 29 : 19 21.
23. Bewley S, Cockburn J. The unfacts of "request" caesarean section. BJOG 2002 109 : 597 605.
24. Mc Gurgan P, Coulter-Smith S, O'Donovan PJ. A national confidential survey of obstetrician's personal preferences regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001 97 : 17 19.
25. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 1997 73 : 1 4.
26. Farrell SA, Baskett TF, Farrell KD. The choice of elective cesarean delivery in obstetrics: a voluntary survey of Canadian health care professionals. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005 16 : 378 383.
27. Bergholt T, Ostberg 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.
28. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003 111 : 164 166.
29. MacDonald C, Pinion SB, MacLeod UM. Scottish female obstetricians' views on elective caesarean section and personal choice for delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002 22 : 586 589.
30. Land R, Parry E, Rane A, Wilson D. Personal preferences of obstetricians towards childbirth. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001 41 : 249 252.
31. Dickson MJ, Willett M. Midwives would prefer a vaginal delivery. BMJ 1999 319 : 1008.
32. Lavender T, Kingdon C, Hart A, et al. Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery. BMJ 2005 331 : 490 491.
33. Walker SP, McCarthy EA, Ugoni A, et al. Cesarean delivery or vaginal birth: A survey of patient and clinician thresholds. Obstet Gynaecol 2007 109 : 67 72.
34. Regione Emilia-Romagna. Giving Births in Emilia Romagna Region. Third Report on Delivery Records Analysis (CeDAP) (La nascita in Emilia-Romagna - 3° rapporto sui dati del certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP)) (In Italian). Bologna : Regione Emilia-Romagna. Giunta Regionale. Direzione Generale Sanità e Politiche Sociali, 2006. Accessed July 16, 2007. Available at : http://www.regione.emiliaromagna.it/sas/cedap/pubblicazioni/rapporto_2005.pdf
35. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit National Sentinel Caesarean Section. Audit report. London, UK : RCOG Press, 2001. Accessed July 16, 2007. Available at : http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/public/pdf/nscs_audit.pdf.
36. Robson MS. We can reduce the cesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001 15 : 179 194.
37. Associazione Italiana Epiinfo. Epiinfo Version 3.3.2 (In Italian), Statistical Package. Atlanta, Georgia : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004. Accessed September 11, 2007. Available at : http://www.epiinfo.it/EpiInfo.htm.
38. Rortveit G, Brown JS, Thom DH, et al. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: Prevalence and risk factors in a population-based, racially diverse cohort. Obstet Gynecol 2007 109 : 1396 1403.
39. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: The international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA 2002 287 : 1822 1831.
40. Buchsbaum GM, Chin M, Glantz C, Guzick D. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and associated risk factors in a cohort of nuns. Obstet Gynecol 2002 100 : 226 229.
41. Faundes A, Guarisi T, Pinto-Neto AM. The risk of urinary incontinence of parous women who delivered only by cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001 72 : 41 46.
42. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Caesarean Section. London, UK : RCOG Press, 2004.
43. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003 348 : 946 950.
44. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001 345 : 3 8.
45. Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001 97 : 439 442.
46. Sjöström O, Holst D. Validity of a questionnaire survey: Response patterns in different subgroups and the effect of social desirability. Acta Odontol Scand 2002 60 (3 136 140.
47. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: A meta-analysis. Birth 2007 34 : 53 64.