Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences

Authors: Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betrán, Pilar Montilla, Elisa Scolaro, Armando Seuc, Agustina Mazzoni, Fernando Althabe, Francesca Merzagora, Gian Paolo Donzelli, Mario Merialdi

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

About 20 million cesareans occur each year in the world and rates have steadily increased in almost all middle- and high-income countries over the last decades. Maternal request is often argued as one of the key forces driving this increase. Italy has the highest cesarean rate of Europe, yet there are no national surveys on the views of Italian women about their preferences on route of delivery. This study aimed to assess Italian women´s preference for mode of delivery, as well as reasons and factors associated with this preference, in a nationally representative sample of women.

Methods

This cross sectional survey was conducted between December 2010-March 2011. An anonymous structured questionnaire asked participants what was their preferred mode of delivery and explored the reasons for this preference by assessing their agreement to a series of statements. Participants were also asked to what extent their preference was influenced by a series of possible sources. The 1st phase of the study was carried out among readers of a popular Italian women´s magazine (Io Donna). In a 2nd phase, the study was complemented by a structured telephone interview.

Results

A total of 1000 Italian women participated in the survey and 80% declared they would prefer to deliver vaginally if they could opt. The preference for vaginal delivery was significantly higher among older (84.7%), more educated (87.6%), multiparous women (82.3%) and especially among those without any previous cesareans (94.2%). The main reasons for preferring a vaginal delivery were not wanting to be separated from the baby during the first hours of life, a shorter hospital stay and a faster postpartum recovery. The main reasons for preferring a cesarean were fear of pain, convenience to schedule the delivery and because it was perceived as being less traumatic for the baby. The source which most influenced the preference of these Italian women was their obstetrician, followed by friends or relatives.

Conclusion

Four in five Italian women would prefer to deliver vaginally if they could opt. Factors associated with a higher preference for cesarean delivery were youth, nulliparity, lower education and a previous cesarean.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van LP: Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007, 21 (2): 98-113. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
ACOG: ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394, December 2007. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2007, 110 (6): 1501-10.1097/01.AOG.0000291577.01569.4c.CrossRef
4.
Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E: Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006, 33 (4): 270-277. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00118.x.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Belizan JM, Cafferata ML, Althabe F, Buekens P: Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth. 2006, 33 (2): 167-169. 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2006.0098b.x.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A: Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006, 367 (9525): 1819-1829. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F: Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012, 206 (4): 331-19.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Dubourg D, Richard F, Van LW, De BV: Need for caesarean sections in west Africa. Lancet. 2002, 359 (9310): 974-975.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Hopkins K: Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?. Soc Sci Med. 2000, 51 (5): 725-740. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00480-3.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Italian Ministry of Health: Ministero della Salute. 2011, SDO. Anno 2011
12.
Cohain JS: Documented causes of unneCesareans. Midwifery Today Int Midwife. 2009, 63 (92): 18-19.
13.
Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheyne AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J: An investigation of women's involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999, 106 (3): 213-220. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08233.x.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jackson NV, Irvine LM: The influence of maternal request on the elective caesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998, 18 (2): 115-119. 10.1080/01443619867812.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Mould TA, Chong S, Spencer JA, Gallivan S: Women's involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996, 103 (11): 1074-1077. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09585.x.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Usha Kiran TS, Jayawickrama NS: Who is responsible for the rising caesarean section rate?. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002, 22 (4): 363-365.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S: Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998, 105 (1): 45-52. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09349.x.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Karlstrom 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. 10.1016/j.midw.2010.05.005.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu NH, Bonotti AM, Gibbons L, Sanchez AJ: Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG. 2011, 118 (4): 391-399. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x.CrossRefPubMed
20.
McCourt C, Weaver J, Statham H, Beake S, Gamble J, Creedy DK: Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth. 2007, 34 (1): 65-79. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00147.x.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR: Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Italy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004, 84 (2): 169-170. 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00319-9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Edwards GJ, Davies NJ: Elective caesarean section–the patient's choice?. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001, 21 (2): 128-129. 10.1080/01443610020025994.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Geary M, Fanagan M, Boylan P: Maternal satisfaction with management in labour and preference for mode of delivery. J Perinat Med. 1997, 25 (5): 433-439. 10.1515/jpme.1997.25.5.433.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U: Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG. 2002, 109 (6): 618-623. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01393.x.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Johanson RB, El-Timini S, Rigby C, Young P, Jones P: Caesarean section by choice could fulfil the inverse care law. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001, 97 (1): 20-22. 10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00424-9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Murphy DJ, Liebling RE: Cohort study of maternal views on future mode of delivery after operative delivery in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 188 (2): 542-548. 10.1067/mob.2003.67.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Halmesmaki E, Saisto T: Fear of childbirth according to parity, gestational age, and obstetric history. BJOG. 2009, 116 (1): 67-73. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02002.x.CrossRefPubMed
28.
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. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00144.x.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Wiklund I, Edman G, Ryding EL, Andolf E: Expectation and experiences of childbirth in primiparae with caesarean section. BJOG. 2008, 115 (3): 324-331. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01564.x.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Donati S, Grandolfo ME, Andreozzi S: Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery?. Birth. 2003, 30 (2): 89-93. 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00226.x.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Mancuso A, De VA, Fanara G, Settineri S, Triolo O, Giacobbe A: Women's preference on mode of delivery in Southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006, 85 (6): 694-699. 10.1080/00016340600645255.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
35.
de Leeuw ED: To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys. JOS. 2005, 21 (2): 233-255.
36.
Italian Ministry of Health: Ministero della Salute Certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP). 2010, Analisi dell'evento nascita: Anno 2009
37.
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P: Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010, 375 (9713): 490-499. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Karlstrom A, Radestad I, Eriksson C, Rubertsson C, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Cesarean section without medical reason, 1997 to 2006: a Swedish register study. Birth. 2010, 37 (1): 11-20. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00373.x.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Robson SJ, Tan WS, Adeyemi A, Dear KB: Estimating the rate of cesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Birth. 2009, 36 (3): 208-212. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00331.x.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Fenwick J, Gamble J, Hauck Y: Reframing birth: a consequence of cesarean section. J Adv Nurs. 2006, 56 (2): 121-130. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03991_1.x.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hall WA, Hauck YL, Carty EM, Hutton EK, Fenwick J, Stoll K: Childbirth fear, anxiety, fatigue, and sleep deprivation in pregnant women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2009, 38 (5): 567-576. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01054.x.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Saisto T, Halmesmaki E: Fear of childbirth: a neglected dilemma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003, 82 (3): 201-208. 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00114.x.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Ryding EL: Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. BJOG. 2006, 113 (6): 638-646. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00950.x.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J: Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004, 59 (8): 601-616. 10.1097/01.OGX.0000133942.76239.57.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Nieminen K, Stephansson O, Ryding EL: Women's fear of childbirth and preference for cesarean section–a cross-sectional study at various stages of pregnancy in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009, 88 (7): 807-813. 10.1080/00016340902998436.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Fenwick J, Staff L, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Bayes S: Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy?. Midwifery. 2010, 26 (4): 394-400. 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.011.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Minkoff H, Chervenak FA: Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2003, 348 (10): 946-950. 10.1056/NEJMsb022734.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Behruzi R, Hatem M, Fraser W, Goulet L, Ii M, Misago C: Facilitators and barriers in the humanization of childbirth practice in Japan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010, 10: 25-10.1186/1471-2393-10-25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Misago C, Umenai T, Onuki D, Haneda K, Wagner M: Humanised maternity care. Lancet. 1999, 354 (9187): 1391-1392.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Rilby L, Jansson S, Lindblom B, Martensson LB: A qualitative study of women's feelings about future childbirth: dread and delight. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012, 57 (2): 120-125. 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00113.x.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Wagner M: Fish can't see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001, 75 (Suppl 1): S25-S37.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Torloni MR, Daher S, Betran AP, Widmer M, Montilla P, Souza JP: Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women's magazines: 20 year review. BMJ. 2011, 342: d276-10.1136/bmj.d276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
54.
Kwee A, Cohlen BJ, Kanhai HH, Bruinse HW, Visser GH: Caesarean section on request: a survey in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004, 113 (2): 186-190. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.017.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Metadata
Title
Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences
Authors
Maria Regina Torloni
Ana Pilar Betrán
Pilar Montilla
Elisa Scolaro
Armando Seuc
Agustina Mazzoni
Fernando Althabe
Francesca Merzagora
Gian Paolo Donzelli
Mario Merialdi
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-78

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research article

Health and nutrition knowledge, attitudes and practices of pregnant women attending and not-attending ANC clinics in Western Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis

Research article

“I have to do what I believe”: Sudanese women’s beliefs and resistance to hegemonic practices at home and during experiences of maternity care in Canada

Research article

Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy among women in Nairobi, Kenya

Study protocol

A matched pair cluster randomized implementation trail to measure the effectiveness of an intervention package aiming to decrease perinatal mortality and increase institution-based obstetric care among indigenous women in Guatemala: study protocol

Research article

A cross-sectional study of maternal perception of fetal movements and antenatal advice in a general pregnant population, using a qualitative framework

Research article

Women with disability: the experience of maternity care during pregnancy, labour and birth and the postnatal period