Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women's magazines: 20 year review

BMJ

Volumn 342, Issue 7792, 2011, Pages 324-

  Torloni, Maria Regina ^a,b   Daher, Silvia ^b   Betrán, Ana Pilar ^c   Widmer, Mariana ^c   Montilla, Pilar ^d   Souza, Joao Paulo ^c   Merialdi, Mario ^c  

^a Brazilian Cochrane Centre   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^d Osservatorio Nazionalesulla Salute della Donna   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NEWBORN DISEASE; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL;

BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICINE IN LITERATURE; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY;

EID: 79551633693     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d276     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006;33:270-7. (Pubitemid 44786317)
2. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-400.
3. Belizan JM, Cafferata ML, Althabe F, Buekens P. Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth 2006;33:167-9.
4. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al.Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010;375:490-9.
5. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006;367:1819-29.
6. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van LP, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98-113.
7. Brazilian Ministry of Health. Pesquisa Nacional de Demografía e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher. 2008. www.saude.gov.br/pnds2006.
8. Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 2000;51:725-40.
9. Handfield B, Turnbull S, Bell RJ. What do obstetricians think about media influences on their patients? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:379-83.
10. Moyer CA, Vishnu LO, Sonnad SS. Providing health information to women: the role of magazines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17:137-45.
11. Usha Kiran TS, Jayawickrama NS. Who is responsible for the rising caesarean section rate? J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:363-5.
12. Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:48.
13. Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, Thaler HT, Chervenak FA. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1137-41. (Pubitemid 40458941)
14. Grupo de Midia São Paulo. Midia Dados Brasil. 2010. www.gm.org. br/page/midia-dados.
15. Circulation Verifying Institute. Instituto Verificador de Circulação - IVC. 2008. www.ivc.org.br/.
16. National Association of Magazine Editors. Associação Nacional de Editores de Revistas. 2008. www.aner.org.br/.
17. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:987-1001.
18. National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-science conference statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse, 2006.
19. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion No 394, December 2007: cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1501.
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Caesarean section. NICE, 2004. (Clinical guideline 13.)
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates. Evaluation of cesarean delivery. ACOG, 2000.
22. Gunderson SA. Critical review of articles regarding pregnancy exposures in popular magazines. Annual Meeting of the Teratology Societies, 1986.
23. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey AB. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 2006;113:1253-8.
24. Wallace LS, Ballard JE. Osteoporosis coverage in selected women's magazines and newspapers, 1998-2001. Am J Health Behav 2003;27:75-83.
25. Weston LC, Ruggiero JA. The popular approach to women's health issues: a content analysis of women's magazines in the 1970s. Women Health 1985;10:47-62.