Women's knowledge of options for birth after Caesarean Section

Women and Birth

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Chen, Meiman M ^a,b   Hancock, Heather ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Birth option; Caesarean Section; Choice; Risk; Vaginal birth after caesarean

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUSTRALIA; BREAST FEEDING; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILDBIRTH; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LABOR; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERUS RUPTURE;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MOTHERS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; URBAN POPULATION; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865308913     PISSN: 18715192     EISSN: 18781799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Althabe F., Belizan J.M. Caesarean Section: the paradox. Lancet 2006, 368:1472-1473.
2. Wagner M. Choosing Caesarean Section. Lancet 2006, 356:1677-1680.
3. Taiwan Bureau of Health Promotion. Live births and still births by methods of delivery 2009; Taiwan Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Taipei. ; [accessed 10.06.10]. http://www.bhp.doh.gov.tw/download/themeParkId=542/980622/1.11a.pdf.
4. MacDorman M., Declercq E., Menacker F., Malloy M. Neonatal mortality for primary caesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an intention-to-treat model. Birth 2008, 35(1):3-8.
5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit. Australia's Mothers and Babies 2008. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit. ; 2008 [accessed 14.01.11]. http://www.npsu.unsw.edu.au/NPSUweb.nsf/page/home.
6. Goumalatsos G., Varma R. Vaginal birth after Caesarean Section: a practical evidence-based approach. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2009, 19(7):178-186.
7. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Report on Maternity Maternal and Newborn Information 2004, Health Service Information. ; 2004 [accessed 22.10.08.]. http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/73/$File/maternityreport04.pdf.
8. Ponte W. Caesarean birth: in a culture of fear. Mothering 2007, 49-63.
9. Souza Jp., Gulmezoglu A.M., Lumbiganon P., Laopailoon M., Garroli G., Fawole B., Ruyan P. Caesarean Section without medical indication is associated an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO global survey on maternal and perintal health. BMC Med 2010, 8(71):1-10.
10. Enkin M., Keise M., Nelson J., Crowther C., Hodnett E., Hofmeyr J. A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth 2000, Oxford University Press, Unite Kingdom. 3rd ed.
11. Gamble J., Health M., Creedy D. Women's preference for a Caesarean Section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001, 28(2):101-110.
12. McCourt C., Weaver J., Statham H., Beake S., Gamble J., Creedy D. Elective Caesarean Section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 2007, 34(1):65-79.
13. Weaver J., Statham H., Richards M. Are there unnecessary Caesarean Sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about Caesarean Section for nonclinical indications. Birth 2007, 34(1):32-40.
14. United Kingdom Department of Health Maternity Standard, National Services Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services 2004, Department of Health, London.
15. Royal College of Midwives Position paper no. 4a woman-centred care 2001, RCM, London.
16. Pope R., Graham L., Patel S. Woman-centred care. Int J Nurs Stud 2001, 38(2):227-238.
17. United Kingdom Department of Health Changing childbirth part 1: report of the expert maternity group 1993, HMSO, London.
18. United Kingdom Department of Health/Partnerships for Children, Families Maternity Maternity matters: choice access and continuity of care in a safe 2007, Department of Health, London.
19. Maternity Coalition. Our philosophy. ; 2008 [accessed 16.06.11.]. http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au/home/modules/content/index.php%3Fid=3.
20. Australian College of Midwives. ACM philosophy for midwifery. ; 2008 [accessed 16.06.08.]. http://www.midwives.org.au/AboutUs/ACMPhilosophyforMidwifery/tabid/256/Default.aspx.
21. Department of Health and Ageing. National Women's Health Policy. ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.
22. South Australia Department of Health. South Australian Women's Health Policy. Adelaide: Government of South Australia. Midwifery Group Practice. Woman centred care. Adelaide: Women's and Children's Hospital: nd; 2005.
23. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GM. Caesarean Section for non-medical reasons at term (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 2006; issue 3. Art. No: CD004660. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub2. ; 2006 [accessed 02.03.08.]. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004660/frame.html.
24. Villar J., Carroli G., Zavaleta N., Donner A., Wojdyla D., Faundes A., Velazco A., Bataglia V., Langer A., Narvaez A., Valladares E., Shah A., Campodonico L., Romero M., Reynoso S., de Padua K.M., Giordano D., Kublickas M., Acosta A. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Br Med J 2007, 335:1025-1035.
25. Creedy D., Noy D. Postdischarge surveillance after Caesarean Section. Birth 2001, 28(4):264-269.
26. Smith G.C. Delivery after previous Caesarean Section. High risk pregnancy: management options 2006, Elsevier, London. 3rd ed. D.K. James, C.P. Weiner, P.J. Steer, B. Gonik (Eds.).
27. Silver R.M., Landon M.B., Rouse D., Leveno K.J., Spong C.Y., Thom E.A., Moawad A.H., Caritis S.N., Harper M., Wapner R.J., Sorokin Y., Miodovnik M., Carpenter M., Peaceman A.M., O'Sullivan M.J., Sibat B., Langer O., Thorp J.M., Ramin S.M., Mercer M. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat caesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 107(6):1226-1232.
28. Hansen A., Wisborg K., Uidjerg N., Henriksen T. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective Caesarean Section: cohort study. Br Med J 2008, 336:85-87.
29. Heinzmann A., Brugger M., Engels C., Prompeler H., Superti-Furga A., Struch K., Krueger M. Risk factors of neonatal respiratory distress following vaginal delivery and Caesarean Section in the German population. Acta Paediatr 2009, 25-30.
30. Hook B., Kiwi R., Amini S., Fanaroff A., Hack M. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 1997, 100:348-353.
31. Childbirth Connection What every pregnant woman should know about Caesarean Section, 2nd ed. ; 2008 [accessed 14.03.08.]. http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp%3FClickedLink=279%26ck=10164%26area=27.
32. Rowe-Murray H., Fisher J. Baby friendly hospital practice: Caesarean Section is a persistent barrier to early initiation of breastfeeding. Birth 2002, 29(2):124-213.
33. Zanardo V., Svegliado G., Cavallin F., Glustardi A., Cosmi E., Litta P., Trevisanuto D. Elective caesarean delivery: does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding?. Birth 2010, 17(4):275-279.
34. Perez-Rios N., Ramos-Valencia G., Ortiz A. Caesarean delivery as a barrier for breastfeeding initiation: the Puerto Rican experience. J Hum Lact 2008, 24(3):293-302.
35. Chong E., Mongelli M. Attitudes of Singapore women toward caesarean and vaginal birth deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003, 80:189-194.
36. Guise J., Berlin M., McDonagh M., Osterwell P., Chan B., Helfand M. Safety of vaginal birth after caesarean: a systematic review. Am Coll Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 103(3):420-429.
37. Rossi A., D'addario V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labour after Caesarean Section vs. elective repeat caesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2008, September:224-231.
38. Foureur M., Ryan C., Nicholl M., Homer C. Inconsistent evidence: analysis of six national guidelines for vaginal birth after Caesarean Section. Birth 2010, 37(1):3-10.
39. Eden K., Hashima J., Osterwell P., Nygren P., Guise J. Childbirth preference after caesarean birth: a review of the evidence. Birth 2004, 31(1):49-60.
40. Pang M.W., Leung T.N., Lau T.K., Chung T.K. Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preference for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth 2008, 35(2):121-128.
41. Nerum H., Halvorsen L., Sorlie T., Oian P. Maternal request for Caesarean Section due to fear of birth: can it be changed through crisis-oriented counselling?. Birth 2006, 33(3):221-228.
42. Turner C.E., Young J.M., Solomon M.J., Ludlow J., Benness C., Phipps H. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: the views of pregnant women and clinicians. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2008, 115(12):1494-1502.
43. Habiba M., Kaminski M., Fre M., Marsal K., Bleker O., Librero J., Grandjean H., Gratia P., Guaschino S., Heyl W., Taylor D., Cuttini M. Caesarean Section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 113(6):647-656.
44. Klein M. Obstetrician's fear of childbirth: how did it happen?. Birth 2005, 32(3):207-209.
45. Wax J., Cartin A., Pinett M., Blackstone D. Patient choice caesarean-the maine experience. Birth 2005, 32(3):203-206.
46. Jones S. Ethics in midwifery 2000, Mosby, London. 2nd ed.
47. Klein K., Worda C., Leipold H., Gruber C., Husslein, Wenzl R. Does the mode of delivery influence sexual function after childbirth?. J Women's Health 2009, 18(8):1227-1231.
48. Reime B., Klein M.C., Kelly A., Duxbury N., Saaxell L., Liston R., Promers F., Entjes R., Wong V. Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 111:1388-1393.
49. Kaplan A.B., Aamodt M.G., Wilk D. The relationship between advertisement variables and applicant responses to newspaper recruitment advertisements. J Bus Psychol 1991, 5(3):383-395.
50. Goer H. The case against elective Caesarean Section. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2001, 15(3):23-38.
51. Shorten A., Chamberlain M., Shorten B., Kariminia A. Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 52:307-313.
52. Polit D.F., Beck C.T. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice 2008, Lippincott and Wilkins, Sydney. 8th ed.
53. Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS Chinese version 12.0) Software Statistical Package; 2003.
54. Clason D.L., Dormody TJ Analysing data measured by individual Likert-type items. J Agric Educ 1994, 35(4):31-35.
55. Morse J.M., Field P.A. Qualitative research methods for health professionals 1995, Sage, London. 2nd ed.
56. Page L.A. Putting science and sensitivity into practice. The new midwifery: science and sensitivity in practice 2000, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. L.A. Page (Ed.).
57. Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP. Applebaum S, Listening to mothers 2: the second national US survey of women and childbearing experiences. ; 2008 [accessed 14.03.08.]. http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdf.asp%3FPDFDownload=LTMII_ExecSum.
58. Goer H. Obstetric myths versus research realities: a guide to the medical literature 1995, Bergin & Gravey, Westport.
59. Emmett C.L., Shaw A.R., Montgomery A.A., Murphy D.J. Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous Caesarean Section: the role of health professionals and information about health risk. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 113:1438-1443.
60. Murphy M.C., Harvey S.M. Choice of a childbirth method after caesarean. Women Health 1989, 152(2):67-85.
61. Fenwick J., Gamble J., Mawson J. Women's experiences of Caesarean Section and vaginal birth after caesarean: a birthrites initiative. Int J Nurs Pract 2003, 9:10-17.
62. Ridley R.T., Davis P.A., Bright J.H., Siclair D. What influences women to choose vaginal birth after caesarean?. J Obstet Gynaecol Neonat Nurs 2002, 665-672.