The decision of women for cesarean birth: A case study in two units of the supplementary health care system of the State of Rio de Janeiro;Trajetória das mulheres na definição pelo parto cesáreo: Estudo de caso em duas unidades do sistema de saúde suplementar do estado do Rio de Janeiro

Ciencia e Saude Coletiva

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1521-1534

  Dias, Marcos Augusto Bastos ^a   Domingues, Rosa Maria Soares Madeira ^a   Pereira, Ana Paula Esteves ^a   Fonseca, Sandra Costa ^b   Da Gama, Silvana Granado Nogueira ^a   Theme Filha, Mariza Miranda ^a   Bittencourt, Sonia Duarte Azevedo ^a   Da Rocha, Penha Maria Mendes ^c   Schilithz, Arthur Orlando Correa ^a   Leal, Maria Do Carmo ^a  

^a INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^b FLUMINENSE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

^c Secretaria de Estado da Saude de Sao Paulo   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Prenatal care; Supplementary health care system

Indexed keywords

EID: 53349116988     PISSN: 14138123     EISSN: 16784561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1413-81232008000500017     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Yazlle ME, Rocha JS, Mendes MC, Patta MC, Marcolin AC, de Azevedo GD. Incidência de cesáreas segundo fonte de financiamento da assistência ao parto. Rev. Saúde Pública 2001; 35(2):202-206.
2. Potter JE, Berquó E, Perpétuo IHO, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, Formiga MCC. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 2001; 323:1155-1158.
3. Gomes UA, Silva AA, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Risk factors for the increasing caesarean section rate in Southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978-1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol 1999; 28(4):687-694.
4. Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 2000; 51(5):725-740.
5. Fabri RH, Murta EFC. Socioeconomic factors and cesarean section rates. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2002; 76:87-88.
6. Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, Thaler HT, Chervenak FA. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(6):1137-1141.
7. Leal MC, Gama SGN, Cunha CB. Desigualdades raciais, sociodemográ ficas e na assistência ao prénatal e ao parto, 1999-2001. Rev. Saúde Pública 2005; 39(1):100-107.
8. Freitas PF, Drachler ML, Leite JCC, Grassi PR. Desigualdade social nas taxas de cesariana em primíparas no Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. Saúde Pública 2005; 39(5):761-767.
9. Bèhague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002; 324(7343):942-945.
10. Organização Mundial da Saúde. Assistência ao parto normal: um guia prático. Genebra: OMS; 1996.
11. NICE.Caesarean section: Full guideline. Published 26 April 2004. [acessado 2007 Abr 24]. Disponível em: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG13/ guidance/pdf/English
12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Standards for obstetric-gynecologic services. Washington, D.C.: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1985.
13. Victora CG, Huttly SR, Fuchs SC, Olinto MT. The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26(1):224-227.
14. D'Orsi E, Chor D, Giffin K, Angulo A, Barbosa G, Gama A, Reis A. Fatores associados à realização de cesáreas em uma maternidade pública do município do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Cad Saúde Pública 2006; 22(10):2067-2078.
15. Faisal-Cury A, Menezes PR. Fatores associados à preferência por cesariana. Rev. Saúde Pública 2006; 40(2):226-232.
16. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Buttarelli M, Franchi M, Durig P, Bruhwiler H. Perinatal outcome of fetuses with a birth weight greater than 4500 g: an analysis of 3356 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 15:109(2):160-165.
17. Gonen R, Spiegel D, Abend M. Is macrosomia predictable, and are shoulder dystocia and birth trauma preventable? Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88(4 Pt 1):526-529.
18. Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91:72-77.
19. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. Guideline No 26. Revised October 2005. [acessado 2006 Fev 20]. Disponível em: http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/ operative_vaginal_delivery.pdf
20. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Induction of labour - full guidance. Published 12 June 2001. [acessado 2006 Fev 20]. Disponível em: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CGD/guidance/pdf/English
21. Glantz JC. Labor Induction Rate Variation in Upstate New York: What Is the Difference? Birth 2003; 30(3):168-174.
22. McNiven P, Williams JI, Hodnett E, Kaufman K, Hannah ME. An early labour assessment program: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1998; 25(1):5-10.
23. Horey D, Weaver J, Russell H. Information for pregnant women about caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1):CD003858.
24. Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth 2005; 32(4):252-261.
25. Gagnon AJ. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth/parenthood. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (4):CD002869.
26. Lauzon L, Hodnett E. Antenatal education for self-diagnosis of the onset of active labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2):CD000935.
27. Brown HC, Smith HJ. Giving women their own case notes to carry during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (2):CD002856.
28. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, Duley CCLD, Hodnett E, Hofmeyer J. A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. England: Oxford University Press; 2000.