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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Factors influencing the decision that women make on their mode of delivery: the Health Belief Model

Authors: Alice Yuen Loke, Louise Davies, Sau-fun Li

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Childbirth is regarded as an important life event for women, and growing numbers of them are making the choice to give birth by Caesarean Delivery. The aim of this study was to identify the factors influencing the decision that women make on their mode of delivery, underpinned by the Health Belief Model.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study. Hong Kong Chinese women aged 18–45, who were pregnant or had given birth within the last three years were recruited. The participants were asked to complete a structured self-administered questionnaire consisting of 62 questions.

Results

A total of 319 women were recruited, of whom 73 (22.9%) preferred to have a cesarean section delivery (CD). The results showed that women preferred CD because they were concerned about being pregnant at an advanced age, were worried about labor pain and perineum tearing, wanted to have a better plan for maternity leave, had chosen an auspicious date to deliver, and perceived that CD is a more convenience way to deliver. The perceived benefits and severity of a vaginal birth (VB), and the perceived benefits, severity, and cues to action of CD, affected the decision to undergo either a VB or CD.

Conclusions

The data indicated that the constructs of the Health Belief Model – perceived benefits, perceived severity, and cues to action – affect the decision that women make on their mode of delivery. This research indicates that there is value in designing educational programs for pregnant women to educate them on the benefits, risks, and severity of the two different modes of birth based on the constructs of HBM. This will enable women to be active participants in choosing the mode of birth that they believe is right for them.
Literature
1.
Altman D, Ekström A, Forsgren C, Nordenstam J, Zetterström J. Symptoms of anal and urinary incontinence following cesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(5):512.e1-7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Backe B, Salvesen KA, Sviggum O. Norwegian obstetricians prefer vaginal route of delivery. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):629.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Boer K, England K, Godfried MH, Thorne C. Mode of delivery in HIV-infected pregnant women and prevention of mother-to-child transmission: Changing practices in Western Europe. HIV Medicine. 2010;11(6):368–78.PubMed
5.
Buyukbayrak EE, Kaymaz OO, Kars BB, Karsidag AK, Bektas EE, Unal OO, et al. Caesarean delivery or vaginal birth: Preference of Turkish pregnant women and influencing factors. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(2):155–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Chong EY, Mongelli MM. Attitudes of Singapore women toward cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;80(2):189.CrossRef
8.
Chu KH, Tai CJ, Hsu CS, Yeh MC, Chien LY. Women's preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Taiwanese women undergoing different modes of delivery. BMC Health Services Research. 2010;10(1):138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Davidson MR, London ML, Ladewig PW. Olds’ maternal newborn nursing & women’s health across the lifespan (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2012.
10.
Dursun P, Yanik F, Zeyneloglu H, Baser E, Kuscu E, Ayhan A. Why women request Cesarean section without medical indication? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;24(9):1133–7.CrossRef
11.
Eden KB, Hashma JN, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Guise J. Childbirth preferences after Cesarean birth: A review of the evidence. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2004;31(1):49–60.CrossRef
12.
Einarsdóttir K, Kemp A, Haggar FA, Moorin RE, Gunnell AS, Preen DB, et al. Increase in caesarean deliveries after the Australian private health insurance incentive policy reforms. Plos ONE. 2012;7(7):1–5.CrossRef
13.
Emmett CL, Shaw AR, Montgomery AA. Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: The role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006;113:1438–45.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Fardi Azar Z, JafariShabiri M. A survey for determining factors on women's attitudes toward vaginal and cesarean delivery. J Tabriz University Med Sci. 2003;37(59):66–9.
15.
Fraser M, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin JM. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Am J Obsteavbt Gynecol. 1997;176(2):419–25.CrossRef
16.
Gamble J, Creedy D. Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2002;27(4):256–63.CrossRef
17.
Hatcher LA, A Step-by-Step Approach to using the SAS® System for factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 1994; p73.
18.
19.
Hong Kong College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Hong Kong Obstetrics and Gynaecology Territory-Wide Audit Report. 2004, Hong Kong: Author.
20.
21.
Hsu K, Liao P, Hwang C. Factors affecting Taiwanese women's choice of Cesarean section. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(1):201–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Quarterly. 1984;11(1):1–47.
24.
Jun Z, Yinghui L, Meikle S, Junchi Z, Wenyu S, Zhu L. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Southeast China. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(5):1077–82.CrossRef
25.
Kerr-Wilson R. Caesarean section on demand. Curr Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;11(2):126–8.CrossRef
26.
Lataifeh I, Zayed F, Al-kuran O. Jordanian obstetricians’ personal preference regarding mode of delivery. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica. 2009;88:733–6.CrossRef
27.
Lee S, Khang Y, Lee M. Women's attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea—a society with high Cesarean section rates. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2004;31(2):108–16.CrossRef
28.
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: The WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):490–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lydon-Rochelle MT, Gardella C, Cárdenas V, Easterling TR. Repeat Cesarean delivery: What Indications are recorded in the medical chart? Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2006;33(1):4–11.CrossRef
30.
MacMillan DT. Understanding the health beliefs of first time mothers who request an elective cesarean versus mothers who request a vaginal delivery. Nursing Dissertations. 2010;14:23–33.
31.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJK, Wilson EC, Mathews TJ. Births: Final Data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2012;61:1.
32.
McGrath P, Ray-Barruel G. The easy option? Australian findings on mothers' perception of elective Caesarean as a birth choice after a prior Caesarean section. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009;15(4):271–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Melender HL. Fears and coping strategies associated with pregnancy and childbirth in Finland. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2002;47:256–63.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Mohammadpourasl A, Asgharian P, Rostami F, Azizi A, Akbari H. Investigating the choice of delivery method type and its related factors in pregnant women in Maragheh. Journal of Knowledge and Health. 2009;4(1):36–9.
35.
Mohtasham G, Atefeh A. Application of Health Belief Model for predicting delivery method among pregnant women of Semirom: A Cross-sectional research. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2013;22(4):494–9.
36.
Monari F, Di Mario S, Facchinetti F, Basevi V. Obstetricians’ and Midwives’ Attitudes toward Cesarean Section. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2008;35(2):129–35.CrossRef
37.
Murray S. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of Caesarean section in Chile: Qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1501–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-Science conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386–97.CrossRef
39.
Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Uotila J, Raudaskoski T, Ulander V, et al. Cesarean delivery in Finland: Maternal complications and obstetric risk factors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2010;89(7):896–902.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Pang M, Leung T, Lau T, Chung KH. Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preference for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2008;35(2):121–8.CrossRef
41.
Penna L, Arulkumaran S. Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82(3):399–409.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Pevzner L, Preslicka C, Bush MC, Chan K. Women's attitudes regarding mode of delivery and Cesarean delivery on maternal request. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2001;24(7):894–9.CrossRef
43.
Robson S, Carey A, Mishra R, Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: A preliminary study of motivations influencing women's decision-making. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48(4):415–20.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Romero ST, Coulson CC, Galvin SL. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: A western North Carolina perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(3):725–34.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Schindl M, Bimer P, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P, Langer M. Elective cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2003;82(9):830–40.CrossRef
46.
Serçekuş P, Okumuş H. Fears associated with childbirth among nulliparous women in Turkey. Midwifery. 2009;25(2):155–62.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Simpson K, Thorman K. Obstetric “Convenience”: Elective induction of Labor, Cesarean Birth on Demand, and Other Potentially Unnecessary Interventions. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2005;19(2):134–44.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Stanton C, Ronsmans C. Recommendations for routine reporting on indications for Cesarean delivery in developing countries. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2008;35(3):204–11.CrossRef
49.
Stjernholm Y, Petersson K, Eneroth E. Changed indications for Cesarean sections. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2010;89(1):49–53.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG. Patient Choice Cesarean—The Maine Experience. Birth: Issues In Perinatal Care. 2005;32(3):203–6.CrossRef
51.
52.
Wiklund I, Edman G, Andolf E. Cesarean section on maternal request: Reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2007;86(4):451–6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436–7.
54.
Xing LF, Ling X, Yan G, Ronsmans C. Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bulletin Of The World Health Organization. 2012;90(1):30–39A.CrossRef
55.
Yip P, Lee J, Cheung Y. The influence of the Chinese zodiac on fertility in Hong Kong SAR. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(22):1803–12.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Zhang JL, Meikle S, Zheng J. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Southeast China. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1077–82.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Zwelling E. The emergence of high-tech birthing. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(1):85–93.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Factors influencing the decision that women make on their mode of delivery: the Health Belief Model
Authors
Alice Yuen Loke
Louise Davies
Sau-fun Li
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0931-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Health Services Research 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Evaluation of the regional nurse-supported hepatitis C shared care program in Western Australia: a mixed methods study

Research article

Ghana’s National Health insurance scheme and maternal and child health: a mixed methods study

Research article

Is the quality of primary healthcare services influenced by the healthcare centre’s type of ownership?—An observational study of patient perceived quality, prescription rates and follow-up routines in privately and publicly owned primary care centres

Research article

Experiences of Latinos with limited English proficiency with patient registration systems and their interactions with clinic front office staff: an exploratory study to inform community-based translational research in North Carolina

Research article

Effectiveness of a transitional home care program in reducing acute hospital utilization: a quasi-experimental study

Debate

Empowering patients through eHealth: a case report of a pan-European project