Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 5/2004

01-10-2004 | Original Article

Non-pregnant patients’ preference for delivery route

Authors: Andrea R. Thurman, James S. Zoller, Steven E. Swift

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2004

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to survey non-pregnant women regarding their preference for obstetric delivery route and to assess their awareness of the maternal and fetal risks of obstetric delivery. We wished to determine the percentage of non-pregnant women who would choose elective cesarean section and to correlate demographic factors. We compared women who elected cesarean delivery versus vaginal delivery. All patients presenting for routine gynecologic care were asked to complete an anonymous survey. Demographic variables analyzed were patient age, race, employment, insurance type and household income. Secondary data regarding knowledge of the risks and benefits of cesarean and vaginal delivery were assessed with a Likert Scale. Of patients surveyed, 13.3% preferred cesarean section. The only significant demographic factor was was race, with 21.7% of non-whites and 7.8% of whites choosing cesarean section. Most patients agreed that elective cesarean sections should be performed and reimbursed by insurance. The majority of women answered neutral regarding the maternal and neonatal risks of obstetrical delivery. The unique feature of this observational study is the sole participation of non-pregnant patients. The percentage of women who would elect cesarean section has significant public health implications. The only difference noted between demographic groups is that non-white women had a stronger preference for cesarean . Without counseling, most women are unsure of the risks of delivery route on maternal and neonatal health.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ventura SJ, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD (2003) Revised birth and fertility rates for the United States, 2000 and 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports 51(4). Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for Health Statistics Ventura SJ, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD (2003) Revised birth and fertility rates for the United States, 2000 and 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports 51(4). Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for Health Statistics
2.
go back to reference Harer W (2000) Patient choice cesarean. Am Coll Obstet Gynecol Rev 5:13–16 Harer W (2000) Patient choice cesarean. Am Coll Obstet Gynecol Rev 5:13–16
5.
go back to reference Chervenak FA, McCullough LB (1996) An ethically justified algorithm for offering, recommending, and performing cesarean delivery and its application in managed care practice. Obstet Gynecol 87:302–305CrossRefPubMed Chervenak FA, McCullough LB (1996) An ethically justified algorithm for offering, recommending, and performing cesarean delivery and its application in managed care practice. Obstet Gynecol 87:302–305CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F (2002) The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol 99:976–980 Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F (2002) The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol 99:976–980
7.
go back to reference O’Boyle AL, Davis GD, Calhoun BC (2002) Informed consent and birth: Protecting the pelvic floor and ourselves. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:981–983CrossRefPubMed O’Boyle AL, Davis GD, Calhoun BC (2002) Informed consent and birth: Protecting the pelvic floor and ourselves. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:981–983CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Arya LA, Jackson ND, Myers DL, Verma A (2001) Risk of new-onset urinary incontinence after forceps and vacuum delivery in primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1318–1324CrossRefPubMed Arya LA, Jackson ND, Myers DL, Verma A (2001) Risk of new-onset urinary incontinence after forceps and vacuum delivery in primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1318–1324CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Chaliha C, Sultan AH, Bland JM, Monga AK, Stanton SL (2001) Anal function: Effect of pregnancy and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol ;185:427–432 Chaliha C, Sultan AH, Bland JM, Monga AK, Stanton SL (2001) Anal function: Effect of pregnancy and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol ;185:427–432
10.
11.
go back to reference Turnbull DA, Wilkinson C, Yaser A, Carty V, Sbigos JM, Robinson JS (1999) Women’s role and satisfaction in the decision to have a caesarean section. Med J Aust 170:580–583PubMed Turnbull DA, Wilkinson C, Yaser A, Carty V, Sbigos JM, Robinson JS (1999) Women’s role and satisfaction in the decision to have a caesarean section. Med J Aust 170:580–583PubMed
12.
go back to reference Ryding EL (1993) Investigation of 33 women who demanded a cesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 72:280–285PubMed Ryding EL (1993) Investigation of 33 women who demanded a cesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 72:280–285PubMed
13.
go back to reference Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U (2002) Few women wish to be delivered by Caesarean Section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 109:618–623 Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U (2002) Few women wish to be delivered by Caesarean Section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 109:618–623
14.
go back to reference Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheyne AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J (1999) An investigation of women’s involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:213–220PubMed Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheyne AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J (1999) An investigation of women’s involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:213–220PubMed
15.
go back to reference Gamble JA, Creedy DK (2000) Women’s request for a cesarean section: A critique of the literature. Birth 27:256–263CrossRefPubMed Gamble JA, Creedy DK (2000) Women’s request for a cesarean section: A critique of the literature. Birth 27:256–263CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Jackson NV, Irvine LM (1998) The influence of maternal request on the elective caesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynecol 18:115–119 Jackson NV, Irvine LM (1998) The influence of maternal request on the elective caesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynecol 18:115–119
17.
go back to reference Mould TAJ, Chong S, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S (1996) Women’s involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:1074–1077PubMed Mould TAJ, Chong S, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S (1996) Women’s involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:1074–1077PubMed
18.
go back to reference Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN (1999) Patient preference the leading indication for elective Caesarean section in public patients: Results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospital. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 39:207–214 Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN (1999) Patient preference the leading indication for elective Caesarean section in public patients: Results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospital. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 39:207–214
19.
go back to reference Geary M, Fanagan M, Boylan P (1997) Maternal satisfaction with management in labour and preference for mode of delivery. J Perinat Med 25:433–439PubMed Geary M, Fanagan M, Boylan P (1997) Maternal satisfaction with management in labour and preference for mode of delivery. J Perinat Med 25:433–439PubMed
20.
go back to reference Hopkins K (2000) Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 51:725–740CrossRefPubMed Hopkins K (2000) Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 51:725–740CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Lee LYK, Holroyd E, Ng CY (2001) Exploring factors influencing Chinese women’s decision to have elective caesarean surgery. Midwifery 17:314–322CrossRefPubMed Lee LYK, Holroyd E, Ng CY (2001) Exploring factors influencing Chinese women’s decision to have elective caesarean surgery. Midwifery 17:314–322CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Gamble JA, Creedy DK (2001). Women’s preference for a cesarean section: Incidence and associated factors. Birth 28:101–110CrossRefPubMed Gamble JA, Creedy DK (2001). Women’s preference for a cesarean section: Incidence and associated factors. Birth 28:101–110CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Osis MJD, Padua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faundes A (2001) The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet 75:S59–S66CrossRef Osis MJD, Padua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faundes A (2001) The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet 75:S59–S66CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC (2002) Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. Br Med J 324:942–947CrossRef Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC (2002) Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. Br Med J 324:942–947CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S (2002) Obstetricians’ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 99:577–580CrossRefPubMed Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S (2002) Obstetricians’ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 99:577–580CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference van Roosmalen J (1999) Unnecessary caesarean sections should be avoided. Br Med J 318:123 van Roosmalen J (1999) Unnecessary caesarean sections should be avoided. Br Med J 318:123
27.
go back to reference Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1997) Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 73:1–4CrossRefPubMed Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1997) Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 73:1–4CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Dickson MJ (1999) Midwives would prefer a vaginal delivery. Br Med J 319:1008 Dickson MJ (1999) Midwives would prefer a vaginal delivery. Br Med J 319:1008
29.
go back to reference Cotzias CS, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM (2001) Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97:15–16CrossRefPubMed Cotzias CS, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM (2001) Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97:15–16CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S (1998) Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? Br J Obstet Gynecol 105:45–52 Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S (1998) Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? Br J Obstet Gynecol 105:45–52
31.
go back to reference King V (1999) Does patient education influence maternal requests for caesarean section? Br Med J 319:190 King V (1999) Does patient education influence maternal requests for caesarean section? Br Med J 319:190
32.
go back to reference Notzon FC (1990) International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. JAMA 263(24):3286–3291CrossRefPubMed Notzon FC (1990) International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. JAMA 263(24):3286–3291CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Stafford RS (1990) Cesarean section use and source of payment: An analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health 80:313–315PubMed Stafford RS (1990) Cesarean section use and source of payment: An analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health 80:313–315PubMed
34.
35.
go back to reference Roberts CL, Tracy S, Peat B (2000) Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: Population based descriptive study. Br Med J 321:137–141CrossRef Roberts CL, Tracy S, Peat B (2000) Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: Population based descriptive study. Br Med J 321:137–141CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Mackenzie IZ (1999) Should women who elect to have caesarean sections pay for them? Br Med J 318:1070 Mackenzie IZ (1999) Should women who elect to have caesarean sections pay for them? Br Med J 318:1070
37.
go back to reference Irvine LM (1999) Patient education is way to influence maternal requests for caesarean section. Br Med J 319:190 Irvine LM (1999) Patient education is way to influence maternal requests for caesarean section. Br Med J 319:190
38.
go back to reference Paterson-Brown S, Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II (1998) Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Br Med J 317:462–465 Paterson-Brown S, Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II (1998) Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Br Med J 317:462–465
39.
go back to reference Lyndon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR (2000) Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 283:2411–2416PubMed Lyndon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR (2000) Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 283:2411–2416PubMed
40.
go back to reference Hemminki E, Merilaninen J (1996) Long-term effects of cesarean sections: Ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1569–1574PubMed Hemminki E, Merilaninen J (1996) Long-term effects of cesarean sections: Ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1569–1574PubMed
41.
go back to reference Sachs BP, McCarthy BJ, Rubin G, Burton A, Terry J, Tyler CW (1983) Cesarean section: Risk and benefits for mother and fetus. JAMA 250:2157–2159PubMed Sachs BP, McCarthy BJ, Rubin G, Burton A, Terry J, Tyler CW (1983) Cesarean section: Risk and benefits for mother and fetus. JAMA 250:2157–2159PubMed
42.
go back to reference Seidman DS, Paz I, Nadu A et al. (1994) Are multiple cesarean sections safe? Eur J Obstet Gynecol 57:7–12 Seidman DS, Paz I, Nadu A et al. (1994) Are multiple cesarean sections safe? Eur J Obstet Gynecol 57:7–12
43.
go back to reference Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, Fanaroff A, Hack M (1997) Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 100:348–353PubMed Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, Fanaroff A, Hack M (1997) Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 100:348–353PubMed
44.
go back to reference Lescale KB, Inglis SR, Eddleman KA, Peeper EQ, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB (1996) Conflicts between physicians and patients in nonelective cesarean delivery: Incidence and the adequacy of informed consent. Am J Perinatol 13:171–176PubMed Lescale KB, Inglis SR, Eddleman KA, Peeper EQ, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB (1996) Conflicts between physicians and patients in nonelective cesarean delivery: Incidence and the adequacy of informed consent. Am J Perinatol 13:171–176PubMed
45.
go back to reference Bump RC (2002) Advising prospective mothers about the maternal morbidity of vaginal childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:823CrossRefPubMed Bump RC (2002) Advising prospective mothers about the maternal morbidity of vaginal childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:823CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Johnson SR, Elkins TE, Strong C, Phelan JP (1986) ‘Obstetric decision-making: Responses to patients who request cesarean delivery,’ Obstet Gynecol 67:847–850 Johnson SR, Elkins TE, Strong C, Phelan JP (1986) ‘Obstetric decision-making: Responses to patients who request cesarean delivery,’ Obstet Gynecol 67:847–850
Metadata
Title
Non-pregnant patients’ preference for delivery route
Authors
Andrea R. Thurman
James S. Zoller
Steven E. Swift
Publication date
01-10-2004
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 5/2004
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-004-1164-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2004

International Urogynecology Journal 5/2004 Go to the issue