[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main Archive Search Submit Manuscript Publication Ethics Contact ::
:: Volume 4, Issue 1 (1-2019) ::
CJHR 2019, 4(1): 6-11 Back to browse issues page
The Choice of Delivery Type and Related Factors in Woman Working at Guilan University of Medical Sciences in 2017-2018
Roghaye Farhadi Hassankiadeh 1, Fardin Mehrabian * 2, Zahra hasanparvar talab 3, Haniye Mehdizadeh 3
1- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology , School of public Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
2- Department of Health Education, School of Health, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran , mehrabian@gums.ac.ir
3- Department of Health Education, School of Health, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
Abstract:   (70 Views)
Background: Although vaginal delivery is the safest type of childbirth, cesarean section (CS) without any medical indication is currently increasing in the world, especially in Iran. The purpose of this study was to determine the type of delivery and its related factors in women working in the departments of Guilan University of Medical Sciences.
Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited 100 women employed in the departments of Guilan University of Medical Sciences in 2017. Data were collected using a questionnaire including demographic and reproductive details of all participants and the reason for choosing CS among women with previous CS. Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test were used to determine the factors related to delivery type.
Results: The prevalence of cesarean section in this study was 80%. Older age at pregnancy and higher education of the respondent and her husband was significantly associated with higher rate of CS. Spouse and relative suggestion for normal delivery was associated with lower rate of CS. The main reasons for CS were women’s fear of childbirth, labor pain, and physician’s recommendation.
Conclusion: The rate of CS delivery is very high in working women. Since concern about pain and possible damage to the body was the most important reasons of choosing CS, providing training classes, better facilitation for normal delivery and adding a special course for girls in high school education is recommended to develop a positive attitude toward normal delivery in women.
Keywords: Cesarean Section, Delivery, Working Women
Article Type: Original Contributions | Subject: Health Education and Promotion
Received: 2018/08/28 | Accepted: 2018/11/18 | Published: 2019/01/1
1. Ronsmans C, de Brouwere V, Dubourg D, Dieltiens G. Measuring the need for life‐saving obstetric surgery in developing countries. BJOG. 2004;111(10):1027-1030. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00247.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00247.x]
2. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean--the Maine experience. Birth. 2005;32(3):203-206. doi: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00370.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00370.x]
3. Zwelling E. The emergence of high-tech birthing. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(1):85-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00211.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00211.x]
4. Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, Evans SR, Kotelchuck M, Simon C, et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(3):669-677. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000255668.20639.40. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000255668.20639.40]
5. Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007;36(6):605-615. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00196.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00196.x]
6. 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(1):32-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00144.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00144.x]
7. Häger RM, Daltveit AK, Hofoss D, Nilsen ST, Kolaas T, Øian P, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(2):428-434. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.037. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.037]
8. Biasucci G, Rubini M, Riboni S, Morelli L, Bessi E, Retetangos C. Type of delivery affects the bacterial community in the newborn gut. Early Hum Dev. 2010;86(Suppl 1):13-15. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.01.004. [DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.01.004]
9. Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N, et al. Delivery type shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jun 29;107(26):11971-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002601107. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1002601107]
10. Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Type of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(3):439-442. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01150-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01150-9]
11. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF. Williams obstetrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2005.
12. Scott JR, Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Haney AF, Nygaard IE. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
13. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343]
14. Rahnama P, Mohammadi K, Montazeri A. Salient beliefs towards vaginal delivery in pregnant women: A qualitative study from Iran. Reprod Health. 2016;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0120-5. [DOI:10.1186/s12978-016-0120-5]
15. Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmoudi M. Evaluation of cesarean delivery and its determinants in maternity hospitals in Tehran [in Persian]. Payesh. 2002;1(3):5-10.
16. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
17. Ryding EL. Investigation of 33 women who demanded a cesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1993;72(4):280-5. doi: 10.3109/00016349309068038. [DOI:10.3109/00016349309068038]
18. Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. In: Corton MM, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Rouse D, Spong C, eds. Williams obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010:697-723.
19. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3]
20. Ahmad-Nia S, Delavar B, Eini-Zinab H, Kazemipour S, Mehryar AH, Naghavi M. Caesarean section in the Islamic Republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. East Mediterr Health J. 2009;15(6):1389-1398.
21. Amiri M, Raei M, chaman R, Rezaee N. Investigating some of the factors influencing choice of delivery type in women working in Shahroud University of Medical Sciences [in Persian]. Razi J Med Sci. 2013;20(106):1-9.
22. Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK, Rossen LM. Births: Provisional data for 2017. Available at: https://www-doh.state.nj.us/doh-shad/view/sharedstatic/Provisional2017Births. pdf. Updated May, 2018. Accessed December 12, 2018.
23. Edmonds JK, O'Hara M, Clarke SP, Shah NT. Variation in cesarean birth rates by labor and delivery nurses. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2017;46(4):486-493. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2017.03.009. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogn.2017.03.009]
24. Fabri RH, Murta EF. Socioeconomic factors and cesarean section rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;76(1):87-88. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00544-6. [DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00544-6]
25. Maroufizadeh S, Bagheri Lankarani N, Almasi Hashiani A, Omani-Samani R, Amini P, Esmaeilzadeh AEsmaeilzadeh A, et al. Prevalence of cesarean section and its related factors among primiparas in Tehran Province, Iran, in 2015 [in Persian]. J Isfahan Med Sch. 2017;35(423):303-309.
26. Mendoza-Sassi RA, Cesar JA, da Silva PR, Denardin G, Rodrigues MM. Risk factors for cesarean section by category of health service. Rev Saúde Pública. 2010;44(1):80-89. doi: [DOI:10.1590/S0034-89102010000100009]
27. Donati S, Grandolfo ME, Andreozzi S. Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth. 2003;30(2):89-93. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00226.x. [DOI:10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00226.x]
28. Ali Mohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoudi M, Ramazanzadeh F. The influence of maternal request on the elective cesarean section rate in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran [in Persian]. Payesh. 2003;2(2):133-139.
29. Signorelli C, Cattaruzza MS, Osborn JF. Risk factors for Caesarean section in Italy: results of amulticentre study. Public Health. 1995;109(3):191-199. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3506(05)80052-6. [DOI:10.1016/S0033-3506(05)80052-6]
30. Gomes UA, Silva AA, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Risk factors for the increasing caesarean section rate in Southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978-1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(4):687-694. doi: 10.1093/ije/28.4.687. [DOI:10.1093/ije/28.4.687]
31. Kiani A, Heidari M, Rahnama P, Mohammaditabar S. Midwives' attitudes and related factors towards elective cesarean section [in Persian]. Payesh. 2014;13(3):331-338.
32. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies? Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(3):253-259.
33. Darsareh F, Aghamolaei T, Rajaei M, Madani A, Zare S. The differences between pregnant women who request elective caesarean and those who plan for vaginal birth based on Health Belief Typel. Women Birth. 2016;29(6):e126-e132. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.05.006. [DOI:10.1016/j.wombi.2016.05.006]
34. Faisal I, Matinnia N, Hejar AR, Khodakarami Z. Why do primigravidae request caesarean section in a normal pregnancy? A qualitative study in Iran. Midwifery. 2014;30(2):227-233. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.011. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.011]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

farhadi Hassankiadeh R, Mehrabian F, hasanparvar talab Z, Mehdizadeh H. The Choice of Delivery Type and Related Factors in Woman Working at Guilan University of Medical Sciences in 2017-2018. CJHR. 2019; 4 (1) :6-11
URL: http://cjhr.gums.ac.ir/article-1-108-en.html

Volume 4, Issue 1 (1-2019) Back to browse issues page
Caspian Journal of Health Research
Creative Commons License
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3815