Top

Published in:

01-02-2019 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-medical professional mothers-to-be and the impact of additional information on their decision: an online questionnaire cohort study

Authors: Julia Bihler, Ralf Tunn, Christl Reisenauer, Giselle E. Kolenic, Jan Pauluschke-Froehlich, Philipp Wagner, Harald Abele, Katharina K. Rall, Gert Naumann, Stephanie Wallwiener, Markus Wallwiener, Christof Sohn, Sara Y. Brucker, Markus Huebner

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

Purpose

It was the aim to evaluate the personal preference of mode of delivery and to analyze differences between medical professionals and non-medical professionals. Interest in participating in a risk stratification system was evaluated. We hypothesized that gaining information about risk stratification provided in the survey could potentially change participants’ decision regarding the preferred mode of delivery; therefore, subjects were asked twice (before and after providing information).

Methods

Five cohorts [four professionals (MP) including participants of the German Urogynecology Congress 2017, employees of two major university hospitals in Germany, and members of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and one non-professional group (NP) including pregnant women] were invited online to participate in this survey.

Results

Vaginal delivery was the preferred mode of delivery in both groups (MP 90.4% vs. NP 88.8%; p = 0.429). MP are more likely to opt for CS due to concerns regarding pelvic floor disorders (MP 56.6% vs. NP 9.1%; p < 0.001). Likewise, parity and prior experienced CS (pCS) had a significant impact on the decision towards vaginal delivery (parity MP OR 7.5 95% CI 4.6–12.3, NP OR 9.3 95% CI 1.9–44.2; (pCS) MP OR 0.12 95% CI 0.07–0.19, NP OR 0.05 95% CI 0.01–0.25). There is great interest in participating in risk stratification systems in the majority of participants (68.9%).

Conclusions

MP and NP prefer vaginal birth for themselves or their partners. Within the group that opted for CS, MP were significantly more often concerned about pelvic floor disorders. Future prevention aspects might include education about pelvic floor disorders.

Available only for authorised users

Venturella R, Quaresima P, Micieli M, Rania E, Palumbo A, Visconti F, Zullo F, Di Carlo C (2018) Non-obstetrical indications for cesarean section: a state-of-the-art review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4742-4 CrossRefPubMed

Caughey AB (2017) Evidence-based labor and delivery management: can we safely reduce the cesarean rate? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 44(4):523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2017.08.008 CrossRefPubMed

Ecker J (2013) Elective cesarean delivery on maternal request. JAMA 309(18):1930–1936. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.3982 CrossRefPubMed

O’Donovan C, O’Donovan J (2017) Why do women request an elective cesarean delivery for non-medical reasons. A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Birth. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12319 CrossRefPubMed

Lista G, Meneghin F, Bresesti I, Castoldi F (2017) Functional nutrients in infants born by vaginal delivery or Cesarean section. Med Surg Pediatr 39(4):184. https://doi.org/10.4081/pmc.2017.184 CrossRef

Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, Spino C, Whitehead WE, Wu J, Brody DJ, Pelvic Floor Disorders N (2008) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 300(11):1311–1316. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.11.1311 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rutayisire E, Huang K, Liu Y, Tao F (2016) The mode of delivery affects the diversity and colonization pattern of the gut microbiota during the first year of infants’ life: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 16(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-016-0498-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO, Kesmodel US, Munk L, Andersson CB, Jolving LR, Nielsen J, Norgard BM (2018) Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ Open 8(2):e019120. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019120 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Huebner M, Brucker SY, Tunn R, Naumann G, Reisenauer C, Abele H (2017) Intrapartal pelvic floor protection: a pragmatic and interdisciplinary approach between obstetrics and urogynecology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(4):795–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4316-x CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jelovsek JE, Chagin K, Gyhagen M, Hagen S, Wilson D, Kattan MW, Elders A, Barber MD, Areskoug B, MacArthur C, Milsom I (2018) Predicting risk of pelvic floor disorders 12 and 20 years after delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(2):222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.014 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wilson D, Dornan J, Milsom I, Freeman R (2014) UR-CHOICE: can we provide mothers-to-be with information about the risk of future pelvic floor dysfunction? Int Urogynecol J 25(11):1449–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2376-z CrossRefPubMed

12.

Bihler J, Tunn R, Reisenauer C, Pauluschke-Frohlich J, Wagner P, Abele H, Rall KK, Naumann G, Wallwiener M, Brucker SY, Hubner M (2017) Personal preference of mode of delivery. What do urogynaecologists choose? Preliminary results of the DECISION study. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 77(11):1182–1188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1996) Obstetricians’ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 347(9000):544CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bergholt T, Ostberg B, Legarth J, Weber T (2004) Danish obstetricians’ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(3):262–266CrossRefPubMed

15.

Rivo JC, Amyx M, Pingray V, Casale RA, Fiorillo AE, Krupitzki HB, Malamud JD, Mendilaharzu M, Medina ML, Del Pino AB, Ribola L, Schvartzman JA, Tartalo GM, Trasmonte M, Varela S, Althabe F, Belizan JM, Feasibility of ‘Mode of Delivery Trial’ Study G (2018) Obstetrical providers’ preferred mode of delivery and attitude towards non-medically indicated caesarean sections: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15122 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lightly K, Shaw E, Dailami N, Bisson D (2014) Personal birth preferences and actual mode of delivery outcomes of obstetricians and gynaecologists in South West England; with comparison to regional and national birth statistics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 181:95–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.07.005 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(5):358–366CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kagan KO, Sonek J, Wagner P, Hoopmann M (2017) Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296(4):645–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I (2013) Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 120(2):152–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12020 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gyhagen M, Milsom I (2013) Prevalence of urinary incontinence 20 years after childbirth in a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery—authors’ reply. BJOG 120(9):1150–1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12268 CrossRefPubMed

21.

MacArthur C, Glazener C, Lancashire R, Herbison P, Wilson D, ProLong study g (2011) Exclusive caesarean section delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study. BJOG 118(8):1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02964.x CrossRefPubMed

22.

Beilecke K, Tunn R (2017) Ein neues Konzept in der postpartalen Pessartherapie. gynäkologie + geburtshilfe 22:30–32

Title: The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-medical professional mothers-to-be and the impact of additional information on their decision: an online questionnaire cohort study
Authors: Julia Bihler
Ralf Tunn
Christl Reisenauer
Giselle E. Kolenic
Jan Pauluschke-Froehlich
Philipp Wagner
Harald Abele
Katharina K. Rall
Gert Naumann
Stephanie Wallwiener
Markus Wallwiener
Christof Sohn
Sara Y. Brucker
Markus Huebner
Publication date: 01-02-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4970-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-medical professional mothers-to-be and the impact of additional information on their decision: an online questionnaire cohort study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Long-term effects of episiotomy on urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review

Association between miRNA-152 polymorphism and risk of preeclampsia susceptibility

Quality of life and oncological outcome in endometrial cancer patients after vaginal brachytherapy: comparison of two dosing schemes

Factors inducing decreased oocyte maturation rate: a retrospective analysis of 20,939 ICSI cycles

False-positive rates in screening for trisomies 18 and 13: a comparison between first-trimester combined screening and a cfDNA-based approach

Retrospective case review of combined local mepivacaine and steroid injections into vaginal trigger points for the management of moderate-to-severe perineal pain after childbirth