Pregnant women's perception of cesarean section on demand

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 251-256

  Tschudin, Sibil ^a   Alder, Judith ^a   Hendriksen, Stephanie ^a   Bitzer, Johannes ^a   Popp, Karoline Aebi ^a   Zanetti, Rosanna ^a   Hösli, Irene ^a   Holzgreve, Wolfgang ^a   Geissbühler, Verena ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b Kantonsspital Frauenfeld   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Antenatal counseling; Birth experience; Cesarean section on demand; Decision making; Perception of cesarean section on demand; Pregnant women

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AWARENESS; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; PAIN; PARITY; PERCEPTION; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RURAL AREA; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE; TELEVISION; URBAN AREA; WELLBEING; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; SWITZERLAND; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PUBLIC OPINION; SWITZERLAND; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 63849295754     PISSN: 03005577     EISSN: 16193997     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2009.042     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk N. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;73:1-4.
2. Béhague D, Victoria C, Barros F. 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. Br Med J. 2002;324:1-6.
3. Chong E, Mongelli M. Attitudes of Singapore women toward caesarean and vaginal deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;80:189-94.
4. CodeInfo 2/05, No18, Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
5. Creedy DK, Shochet IM, Horsfall J. Childbirth and the development of acute trauma symptoms: incidence and contributing factors. Birth. 2000;27:104-11.
6. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden. Pressemitteilung Nr. 050 vom 07.02.2007.
7. Gamble JA, Health M, Creedy DK. Women's request for a caesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth. 2000; 27:256-63.
8. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women's preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth. 2001;28:101-10.
9. Gamble JA, Creedy DK, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S. A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section. Birth. 2007;34:331-40.
10. Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S. Obstetricians' opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:577-80.
11. Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. Br Med J. 2008;336: 85-7.
12. Huizink AC, Mulder EJH, Robles de Medina PG, Visser GHA, Buitelaar JK. Is pregnancy anxiety a distinctive syndrome? Early Hum Dev. 2004;79:81-91.
13. 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;111:164-6.
14. Johanson RB, El-Timini S, Rigby C, Young P, Jones P. Caesarean section by choice could fulfil the inverse care law. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97:20-2.
15. Lapeyre E, Finan M, Hedges S, Lovitt S, Magnus M. Patient choice for elective cesarean delivery: report on a survey. The Female Patient. 2004;29:12-21.
16. Ludwig H, Loeffler FE. Caesarean section on demand - an ethical dilemma. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2001:264:169-70.
17. MacDonald C, Pinion SB, MacLeod UM. Scottish female obstetricians' view on elective caesarean section and personal choice for delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22: 586-9.
18. McCourt C, Weaver J, Statham H, Beake S, Gamble J, Creedy DK. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth. 2007;34:65-79.
19. Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007;36:605-15.
20. NICE guidelines: Caesarean section. London, 2004.
21. Potter J, BerquóE, Perpétuo H, Leal O, Hopkins K, Souza M, et al. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. Br Med J. 2001;323:1155-8.
22. Ryding EL. Psychosocial indications for cesarean section. A retrospective study of 43 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1991;70:47-9.
23. Ryding EL. Investigation of 33 women who demanded a cesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1993;72:280-5.
24. Schenker JG, Cain JM. FIGO Committee Report. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;64: 317-22.
25. Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura E. Husslein P, Langer M. Elective caesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:834-40.
26. Simpson KR, Thorman KE. Obstetric "conveniences": elective induction of labour, caesarean birth on demand, and other potentially unnecessary intervention. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2005;19:134-44.
27. Söderquist J, Wijma K, Wijma B. Traumatic stress after childbirth: the role of obstetric variables. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;23:31-9.