Womens' attitudes and beliefs of childbirth and association with birth preference: A comparison of a Swedish and an Australian sample in mid-pregnancy

Midwifery

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2012, Pages e850-e856

  Haines, Helen ^a,b,e   Rubertsson, Christine ^a   Pallant, Julie F ^b   Hildingsson, Ingegerd ^a,c,d  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c MID SWEDEN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^e Northeast Health   (Australia)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Beliefs; Birth preference; Factor analysis

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUSTRALIA; BIRTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PARITY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SWEDEN; WOMEN'S HEALTH; YOUNG ADULT;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUSTRALIA; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PARITY; PARTURITION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; QUESTIONNAIRES; SWEDEN; WOMEN'S HEALTH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84876179703     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2011.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bartlett M.S. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1954, 16(Series B):296-298.
2. Beckett K. Choosing cesarean: feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States. Feminist Theory 2005, 6(3):251-276.
3. Betrán A., Merialdi M., Lauer J., et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2007, 21(2):98-113.
4. Bourgeault I.L., Declercq E., Declercq E., et al. Too posh to push? Comparative perspectives on maternal request caesarean sections in Canada, the US, the UK and Finland. Patients, Consumers and Civil Society 2008, vol. 10:99-123. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Chambré, SM.
5. Bryant J., Porter M., Tracy S., Sullivan E. Caesarean birth: consumption, safety, order, and good mothering. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65(6):1192-1201.
6. Catell R.B. The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research 1966, 1:245-276.
7. Cherniak D., Fisher J. Explaining obstetric interventionism: technical skills, common conceptualisations, or collective countertransference?. Women's Studies International Forum 2008, 31(4):270-277.
8. DeVellis R.F. Classical test theory. Medical Care 2006, 44(11):S50-S59. Suppl. 3.
9. Fenwick J., Gamble J., Nathan E., Bayes S., Hauck Y. Pre- and postpartum levels of childbirth fear and the relationship to birth outcomes in a cohort of Australian women. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2009, 18(5):667-677.
10. Fenwick J., Staff L., Gamble J., Creedy D.K., Bayes S. Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy?. Midwifery 2010, 26(4):394-400.
11. Gibbons, L., Belizán, J.M., Lauer, J.A., Betrán, A.P., Merialdi, M., Althabe, F., 2010. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report Background Paper, No. 3. (last accessed 30 August 2011). http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf.
12. Gamble J.A., Creedy D.K. Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 2000, 27(4):256-263.
13. Gamble J.A., Creedy D.K. Women's preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 2001, 28(2):101-110.
14. Goodall K.E., McVittie C., Magill M. Birth choice following primary caesarean section: mothers' perceptions of the influence of health professionals on decision-making. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 2009, 27(1):4-14.
15. Green J.M., Baston H.A. Have women become more willing to accept obstetric interventions and does this relate to mode of birth? data from a prospective study. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 2007, 34(1):6-13.
16. Haines H., Pallant J.F., Karlström A., Hildingsson Cross-cultural comparison of levels of childbirth-related fear in an Australian and Swedish sample. Midwifery 2011, 27(4):560-567.
17. Hildingsson I. How much influence do women in Sweden have on caesarean section? A follow-up study of women's preferences in early pregnancy. Midwifery 2008, 24(1):46-54.
18. Hildingsson I., Radestad I., Rubertsson C., Waldenstrom U. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002, 109(6):618-623.
19. Horn J.L.A. Rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965, 30:179-185.
20. Hubbard R., Allen S.J. An empirical comparison of alternative methods for principal component extraction. Journal of Business Research 1987, 15:173-190.
21. Kaiser H. A second generation lLittle Jiffy. Psychometrika 1970, 35:401-415.
22. Kaiser H. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39:31-36.
23. Karlström A., Nystedt A., Johansson M., Hildingsson I. Behind the myth-few women prefer caesarean section in the absence of medical or obstetrical factors. Midwifery 2011, 27(5):620-627.
24. Kingdon C., 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(3):229-237.
25. Kingdon C., Neilson J., Singleton V., et al. Choice and birth method: mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2009, 116(7):886-895.
26. Klein M.C., Sakala C., Simkin P., Davis-Floyd R., Rooks J.P., Pincus J. Why do women go along with this stuff?. Birth 2006, 33(3):245-250.
27. Ladfors L., Eriksson M., Mattsson L.-Å., Kylebäck K., Magnusson L., Milsom I. A population based study of Swedish women's opinions about antenatal, delivery and postpartum care. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2001, 80(2):130-136.
28. Laws P., Sullivan E.A. Australia's Mothers and Babies 2007. Perinatal Statistics Series No. 23. Cat. No. PER 48 2009, AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Sydney.
29. Lupton D. Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Social Science and Medicine 1997, 45(3):373-381.
30. Mander R. Caesarean. Just Another Way of Birth? 2007, Routledge, Abington, Oxon.
31. Mazzoni A., Althabe F., Liu N.H., Bonotti A.M., Gibbons L., Sánchez A.J., et al. Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010, 118(4):391-399.
32. McCourt C., Weaver J., Statham H., Beake S., Gamble J., Creedy D.K. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 2007, 34(1):65-79.
33. McGrath P., Phillips E., Vaughan G. Vaginal birth after caesarean risk decision-making: Australian findings on the mothers' perspective. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2010, 16(3):274-281.
34. Robson M.S. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001, 15(1):179-194.
35. Robson S., Carey A., Mishra R., Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women's decision making. Australia New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008, 48(4):415-420.
36. Rothman K.J. Epidemiology: An Introduction 2002, Oxford University Press, New York.
37. Socialstyrelsen, 2007. Pregnancies, Deliveries and Newborn Infants Assisted Reproduction, treatment 1991-2006. T. S. M. B. R. 1973-2007, Welfare NBoHa edn. 106 30 Stockholm.
38. Thomas, J., Paranjothy, S., 2001. The National Sentinal Caesarean Section Audit Report. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG Press.
39. Walker R., Turnbll D., Wilkinson C. Increasing cesarean section rates: exploring the role of culture in an australian community. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 2004, 31(2):117-124.
40. Watkins M.W. Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis (Computer Software) 2000, Ed and Psych Associates, State College, PA.
41. Weaver J.J., Statham H., Richards M. Are there 'unnecessary' cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 2007, 34(1):32-41.
42. Zwick W.R., Velicer W.F. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin 1986, 99:432-442.