Determinants of cesarean and its trend in Damghan, Iran

Iranian Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 33-38

  Bahonar, A R ^a   Shaebani, A A ^b   Aghajani, M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN   (Iran)

^b SEMNAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Cesarean; Damghan; Determinants

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922686213     PISSN: 17357489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sharifi Rad GH, Fathian Z, Tirani M, Mahaki B. Survey on attitude of pregnant woman about natural and cesarean Delivery according to behavioral model. Ilam University of medical science. 2006; 15: 19-23.
2. David H, Norman J. Gynecology illustrated. 5th edition, Churchill Livingstone Co, London 2000; 301-338.
3. Larger B. Schrader G. What Dose the cesarean Rate Mean in France. J Gynecology Obster Boil Report 1998; 27: 62-70.
4. Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 2001; 51: 725-740.
5. Porreco RP. Meeting the challenge of rising cesarean birth rate. Obstet Gynecol. 1990: 75: 133-136.
6. Badkhsh MH, Alizadeh KH. Survey of cesarean prevalence in under coverage centersof medical science universities. Journal science medical council of Iran. 2000;18: 171-174.
7. Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmudi M. Survey of cesarean prevalence and it's determinants in childbirth hospitals of Tehran. Payesh 2001; 1: 5-10
8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates: Evaluation of cesarean delivery. June 2000.
9. Bolbol Haghighi N, Ebrahimi H, Ajami ME, Frequency of natural delivery and it's causes in Shahrud. Journal of reproductive and infertility, 1381; 3: 51-58.
10. Sarmad Z, Bazargan A, Hejazi E. Research methods in behavioral science. 13th edition, Tehran: 2007, 156.
11. Azizi F. Delivery with cesarean: shake increasing. Research in medicine 2007; 31: 191-193.
12. Mohamad Beigi A, Tabatabyi SMR, Mohamad Salehi N. Determination of effective factors on performcesarean action in Shiraz Hospitals. Jounal of faculty of nursery and gynecology of Iran university of medical sciences 2008; 21:37-45.
13. Tabande A, Kashani E. Prevalence of cesarean in educated woman of medical sciences group in Gorgan(2004). Scientific journal of Gorgan university of medical sciences 2006; 9:67-70.
14. World Health Organization, Appropriate technology for birth, Lancet 1985: 436-437.
15. Belizan Jose M, Althabe F, Barros FC. Rates and implications of cesarean section in Latin America Ecological study. British Medical Journal 1999; 319: 1397-1400.
16. 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. The Lancet; 367 1819-1829.
17. Gamarudi GH, Eftekhar H, Batebi A. Survey on background factors of cesarean in pregnant mothers, Payesh 1381; 1: 45-49
18. Jurdi R, Khawaja M. Caesarean section rates in the Arab region: a cross-national study. Health Policy and Planning 2004; 19: 101-110.
19. Chen CS, Lin HC, Liu TC, Lin SY, Pfeiffer S. Urbanization and the likelihood of a cesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2008; 141:104-110.
20. Pang MW, Law LW, Leung TY, Lai PY, La TK. Sociodemographic factors and pregnancy events associated with women who declined vaginal birth after cesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2009; 143: 24-28.
21. Motamedi B, Jan Ghorbani M, Eftekhari N. Prevalence and some determinants of cesarean in Kerman. Journal of Gilan university of medical sciences 2000; 9: 88-95.
22. Mostafazadeh F, Mashoofi M, Rostamnejad M. Attitude of pregnant women and health personnel toward normal delivery Vs cesarean section. Journal of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences 2006; 6: 403-408.