Organisation of maternity care and choices of mode of birth: A worldwide view

Midwifery

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 146-149

  Soltani, Hora ^a   Sandall, Jane ^b  

^a SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Birth; Care model; Intervention; Midwifery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDWIFE; OBSTETRICS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; STATISTICS;

CESAREAN SECTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; MIDWIFERY; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME;

EID: 84858156844     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ahmad-Nia S., Delavar B., Eini-Zinab H., Kazemipour S., Mehryar A.H., Naghavi M. Caesarean section in the Islamic Republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2009, 15(6):1389.
2. Althabe F., Sosa C., Belizan J.M., 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(4):270-277.
3. Arrieta A. Health reform and cesarean sections in the private sector: the experience of Peru. Health Policy 2011, 99:124-130.
4. Australian College of Midwives MEDIA RELEASE: Mothers and Midwives Budget winners (13 May 2009).
5. Australia's national agency for health and welfare statistics and information. Australia's Mothers and Babies, 2003 Report. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/media-release-detail/?id=6442464615.
6. Belizan J.M., Caff erata M.L., Althabe F., Buekens P. Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth 2006, 33:167-169.
7. Betrán A., Merialdi M., Lauer J.A., et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2007, 21:98-113.
8. Dickson M.J., Willett M. Midwives would prefer a vaginal delivery. British Medical Journal 1999, 319:1008.
9. European Perinatal Health Report (Euro Peristat), 2008. Available: Peristat-data from 2004 (for Netherland, and Finland and Norway). Available from: http://www.europeristat.com.
10. Gamble J.A., Creedy D.K. Women's preference for a caesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001, 28(2):101-109.
11. Groom A., Paterson-Brown S., Fisk N. Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2002, 100(2). 185-8.
12. Habiba M., Kaminski M., Da Fre M., et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006, 113:647-656.
13. Hatem M., Sandall, J., Devane D., Soltani H., Gates, S., 2008. Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Art. no: CD004667.
14. Martin J.A., Hamilton B.E., Sutton P.D., Ventura S.J., Mathews T.J., Kirmeyer S., Osterman M.J.K. Births: preliminary data for 2007. National Vital Statistics Reports 2010, 58(24):1-86. USA.
15. Mazzoni A., Althabe F., Liu N., et al. Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2011, 118:391-399.
16. Osis M.J., Padua K.S., Duarte G.A., Souza T.R., Faundes A. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2001, 75(suppl. 1):S59-66.
17. Ostovar R., Eashidian A., Pourreza A., et al., 2010. Developing criteria for Cesarean Section using the RAND appropriateness method. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 10:52. Available from from: Ministry of Health and Medical Education: The Fertility Health Assessment Program. Family Health Section, Tehran 2005. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/52-Reported.
18. Ribeiro V.S., Figueiredo F.P., Silva A.A.M., et al. Why are the rates of cesarean section in Brazil higher in more developed cities than in less developed ones?. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 2007, 40:1211-1220.
19. Robson S., Carey A., Mishra R., Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women's decision making. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008, 48:415-420.
20. Sandall J., Hatem M., Devane D., Soltani H., Gates S. Discussion of findings from a Cochrane review of midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women: continuity, normality and safety. Midwifery 2009, 25:8-13.
21. Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Lumbiganon, P., et al., 2010. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Medicine 2010, 8:71. From http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/71.
22. The Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey. Ottawa, 2009. Available from http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/health+system+performance/indicators/performance/release_16dec10.
23. Villar J., Valladares E., Wojdyla D., et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367:1819-1829.
24. World Health Organization (WHO) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2(8452):436-437.