Women's preference for caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 118, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 391-399

  Mazzoni, A ^a   Althabe, F ^a   Liu, N H ^b   Bonotti, A M ^c   Gibbons, L ^a   Sanchez A J ^c   Belizan J M ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND HEALTH POLICY   (Argentina)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^c Ministry of Health   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; childbirth; choice; delivery; obstetric; prefer; request

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CITATION ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCOME; META ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCREENING; SOCIAL STATUS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 79951547813     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Arias E, MacDorman M, Strobino D, Guyer B,. Annual summary of vital statistics-2002. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 1215-30.
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, Althabe F, Cafferata ML,. Health consequences of (Pubitemid 46955315)
4. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán 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)
5. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98-113.
6. Belizán JM, Cafferata ML, Althabe F,. Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth 2006; 33: 167-9.
7. 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. (Pubitemid 43833191)
8. Dobson R,. Caesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21 percent. BMJ 2001; 323: 951.
9. Gamble JA, Health M, Creedy DK,. Women's preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001; 28: 101-10. (Pubitemid 33755155)
10. Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U,. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG 2002; 109: 618-23. (Pubitemid 37329270)
11. Potter JE, Berquo E, Perpetuo IH, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, et al. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 2001; 323: 1155-8. (Pubitemid 33078162)
12. Osis MJ, Padua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faundes A,. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 75 (Suppl 1): S59-66.
13. Angeja A, Washington A, Vargas J, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey A,. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 2006; 113: 1253-8. (Pubitemid 44581514)
14. Pang SM, Leung DT, Leung TY, Lai CY, Lau TK, Chung TK,. Determinants of preference for elective caesarean section in Hong Kong Chinese pregnant women. Hong Kong Med J 2007; 13: 100-5. (Pubitemid 46556769)
15. Chong ES, Mongelli M,. Attitudes of Singapore women toward cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 80: 189-94. (Pubitemid 36143964)
16. Gamble JA, Creedy DK,. Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 2000; 27: 256-63. (Pubitemid 34595450)
17. Eden KB, Hashima JN, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Guise JM,. Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: a review of the evidence. Birth 2004; 31: 49-60. (Pubitemid 38393443)
18. Kingdon CK, 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: 229-37. (Pubitemid 44310080)
19. Gamble J, Crreedy DK, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S,. A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section. Birth 2007; 34: 331-40. (Pubitemid 350132645)
20. 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.
21. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-12. (Pubitemid 30214957)
22. The World Bank Group. Gross national income data by country. []. Last accessed 12 December 2009.
23. Freeman MF, Tukey JW,. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat 1950; 21: 607-11.
24. DerSimonian R, Laird N,. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88. (Pubitemid 17189972)
25. StatsDirect statistical software. Altincham, UK: StatsDirect Ltd., 2009. []. Last accessed 23 October 2009.
26. StataCorp. Statistical Software: Release 8.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2001.
27. Meta-regression approaches: what, why, when, and how? Agency for healthcare research and quality. U.S Department of Health & Human Services. []. Last accessed 10 October 2009.
28. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4: e296.
29. Sanderson S, Tatt I, Higgins J,. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 666-76. (Pubitemid 47244573)
30. Barbosa GP, Giffin K, Angulo-Tuesta A, de Souza Gama A, Chor D, D'Orsi E, et al. Cesarean sections: who wants them and under what circumstances? Cad Saude Publica 2003; 19: 1611-20.
31. Behague 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: 942-5. (Pubitemid 34429873)
32. Bracken JN, Dryfhout VL, Goldenhar LM, Pauls RN,. Preferences and concerns for delivery: an antepartum survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 1527-31.
33. Dias MAB, Domingues RMSM, Pereira APE, Fonseca SC, da Gama SGN, Filha MMT, et al. Trajetõria das mulheres na definiÃão pelo parto cesáreo: estudo de caso em duas unidades do sistema de saÃde suplementar do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Ciênc saÃde coletiva 2008; 13: 1521-34.
34. Dodd J, Pearce E, Crowther C,. Women's experiences and preferences following Caesarean birth. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 44: 521-4. (Pubitemid 40073953)
35. Donati S, Grandolfo ME, Andreozzi S,. Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth 2003; 30: 89-93. (Pubitemid 36623450)
36. Edwards GJ, Davies NJ,. Elective caesarean section-the patient's choice? J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 21: 128-9. (Pubitemid 32289993)
37. Faisal-Cury A, Menezes PR,. Factors associated with preference for cesarean delivery. Rev Saude Publica 2006; 40: 226-32.
38. Gao SY, Jing RW, Jin LM, Xu C,. A questionnaire investigation on the way of delivery and its related factors in 415 women at child bearing age in one hospital. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2004; 25: 799-801.
39. Geary M, Fanagan M, Boylan P,. Maternal satisfaction with management in labour and preference for mode of delivery. J Perinat Med 1997; 25: 433-9. (Pubitemid 27499697)
40. Hopkins K,. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 725-40. (Pubitemid 30316326)
41. 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. (Pubitemid 32619110)
42. Koken G, Cosar E, Sahin FK, Tolga Arioz D, Duman Z, Aral I,. Attitudes towards mode of delivery and cesarean on demand in Turkey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 99: 233-5. (Pubitemid 350007585)
43. Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee MS,. Women's attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea-a society with high cesarean section rates. Birth 2004; 31: 108-16.
44. Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Fanara G, Settineri S, Triolo O, Giacobbe A,. Women's preference on mode of delivery in Southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 694-9. (Pubitemid 43995048)
45. Manthata AL, Hall DR, Steyn PS, Grove D,. The attitudes of two groups of South African women towards mode of delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 92: 87-91. (Pubitemid 41773728)
46. McClain CS,. Patient decision making: the case of delivery method after a previous cesarean section. Cult Med Psychiatry 1987; 11: 495-508.
47. Murray SF,. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 2000; 321: 1501-5. (Pubitemid 32011369)
48. Pakenham S, Chamberlain SM, Smith GN,. Women's views on elective primary caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006; 28: 1089-94.
49. Pevzner L, Goffman D, Freda MC, Dayal AK,. Patients' attitudes associated with cesarean delivery on maternal request in an urban population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: e35-7.
50. Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Halmesmaki E, Saisto T,. Fear of childbirth according to parity, gestational age, and obstetric history. BJOG 2009; 116: 67-73.
51. Tatar M, Gunalp S, Somunoglu S, Demirol A,. Women's perceptions of caesarean section: reflections from a Turkish teaching hospital. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50: 1227-33. (Pubitemid 30084745)
52. Tedesco RP, Maia Filho NL, Mathias L, Benez AL, Castro VCL, Bourroul GM, et al. Fatores determinantes para as expectativas de primigestas acerca da via de parto. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2004; 26: 791-8.
53. Thurman AR, Zoller JS, Swift SE,. Non-pregnant patients' preference for delivery route. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2004; 15: 308-12. (Pubitemid 39378375)
54. Thomas J, Paranjothy S,. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Eïectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
55. Wiklund I, Edman G, Ryding EL, Andolf E,. Expectation and experiences of childbirth in primiparae with caesarean section. BJOG 2008; 115: 324-31.
56. Abitbol MM, Castillo I, Taylor UB, Rochelson BL, Shmoys S, Monheit AG,. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: the patient's point of view. Am Fam Physician 1993; 47: 129-34. (Pubitemid 23025787)
57. Hellmers C, Schuecking B,. Primiparae's well-being before and after birth and relationship with preferred and actual mode of birth in Germany and the USA. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2008; 26: 351-72.
58. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE,. Cohort study of maternal views on future mode of delivery after operative delivery in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 542-8. (Pubitemid 36249999)
59. Pang MW, Lee TS, Leung AKL, Leung TY, Lau TK, Leung TN,. A longitudinal observational study of preference for elective caesarean section among nulliparous Hong Kong Chinese women. BJOG 2007; 114: 623-9. (Pubitemid 46587945)
60. Weaver JJ, Statham H, Richards M,. Are there 'unnecessary' cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth 2007; 34: 32-41.
61. Langer A, Villar J,. Promoting evidence based practice in maternal care. BMJ 2002; 324: 928-92.