Awareness and perceptions of Turkish women towards delivery methods

Abstract

Objective: Our aim is to identify the causes of the women\'s preferences of vaginal delivery vs. cesarean section and their attitudes for an elective cesarean section. Methods: 400 healthy woman who had applied for antenatal care were included in the study. A questionnaire which is consisted of 21 questions, focused on preference toward mode of delivery and the etiology of these preferences was conducted as a face to face interview. According to history of delivery methods, women have separated into three groups as; women have never given birth/nulliparous (group 1), women who had only vaginal deliveries (group 2), and women who had at least one cesarean deliveries/previous cesarean section (group 3). Results: Of the 400 women questioned, 348 (%87) opted for vaginal delivery, whereas only 52 (%13) opted for an elective caesarean delivery. Ratios of cesarean delivery preference is high in group 3 (%47.5) than group 1( %26) and 2 (%2.7) . Main reasons for vaginal delivery preference: feeling of less pain, fast and easy recovery and less bleeding and infection risc for mothers were the most common preference reasons among all 3 groups. The most common reasons for choosing caesarean delivery were: ‘more comfortable and easy\' in group 1 and ‘tubal ligation demand\' in group 3. ‘Less pain\' and ‘fear of tearing (episiotomy)\' also other common reasons for choosing cesarean delivery among all 3 groups. Conclusion: In order to reduce the rate of implemented cesarean section, it is substantially important to encourage educated women and those who have experienced advanced maternal age for increasing the rate of vaginal delivery. J Clin Exp Invest 2014; 5 (2): 173-178

Keywords

• Cesarean, mode of delivery, patient preference, vaginal delivery

Türk kadınlarının doğum yöntemleri hakkındaki bilgi düzeyi ve bakış açısı

Öz

Amaç: Bizim amacımız kadınların vajinal doğum, sezeryan doğum seçimindeki etmenleri belirlemek ve elektif sezeryan ile doğuma bakış açılarını belirlemektir. Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza antenatal bakım için başvuran 400 sağlıklı kadın aldık. Çalışmamızda yüz yüze soru cevap şeklinde 21 soru içeren bir anket formu kullandık ve formda doğum şekli seçimleri ve buna etkileyen faktörler ile ilgili sorular sorduk. Daha önceki doğum şekillerine göre hastaları daha önce hiç doğurmamış/nullipar (grup 1), daha once sadece vajinal doğum yapmış olanlar (grup 2) ve daha önce en az 1 sezaryen doğum yapmış olanlar (grup 3) olarak ayırdık. Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan 400 kadının 348 i (%87) vajinal doğum 52 si (%13) ise sezeryan doğumu tercih etti. Sezeryan ile doğumu tercih etme oranları grup 3 te( %47.5) grup 1(%26) ve 2(%2.7) ye göre daha yüksekti. Her 3 grupta da vajinal doğumu tercih etmenin ana nedenleri ‘daha az ağrı, hızlı ve kolay iyileşme, anne için daha az kanama ve enfeksiyon riski\' idi. Sezeryan doğumu tercih etmenin ana nedenleri ise grup 1 de daha konforlu ve kolay olması iken grup 3 te tüp ligasyonu isteği idi. Daha az ağrı ve epizyotomiden korku ise diğer ana nedenlerdendi. Sonuç: Sezeryan oranlarını azaltmak ve normal doğum oranlarını arttırmak için kadınların eğitilmesi ve ileri anne yaşına sahip kadınların yeterli ve doğru bilgilendirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sezaryen, doğum şekli, hasta tercihi, vajinal doğum

References

1. Osis MJ, Padua KS, Duarte GA, et al. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesar- ean section. İnt J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;75:59-66.
2. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Un- necessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 30:19.
3. Porreco RP, Thorp JA. The caesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:369-374.
4. Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The Fertility Assessment Program Family Health Section, Tehran, 2005.
5. Dinas K, Mavromatidis G, Dovas D, et al. Current cae- sarean delivery rates and indications in a major public hospital in northern Greece. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynae- col 2008;48:142-146.
6. Turkey Statistics Institute (TurkStat) 2003. Demographıc structure of turkey and its future 2010-2050 page 6.
7. Turkey Statistics Institute (TurkStat) Address Based Population Registration System (ADNKS) 2010.
8. Buyukbayrak EE, Kaymaz O, Kars B, et al. Caesarean delivery or vaginal birth: preference of Turkish preg- nant women and influencing factors. J Obstet Gynae- col 2010;30:155-158.

9. Koken G, Cosar K, Sahin FK, et al. Attitudes towards mode of delivery and cesarean on demand in Turkey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99:233-235.
10. ACOG. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of deci- sion making. Committee Opinion 289. American Col- lege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2003;10:15- 16.
11. Visco AG, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN, et al. 2006. Cesarean delivery on maternal request, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics and Gynecology 108:1517-1529.
12. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, et al. Chil- ean women’s preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG. 2006;113:1253- 1258.
13. Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequal- ity? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002;324:942.
14. Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous. Lancet 2006;367:1796-1797.
15. Feng L, Yue Y. Analysis on the 45-year cesarean rate and its social factors. Med Soc 2002;15:14-16.
16. Liu TC, Chen CS, Tsai YW, Lin HC. Taiwan’s high rate of cesarean births: impacts of national health insur- ance and fetal gender preference. Birth 2007;34:115- 122.
17. Roman H, Blondel B, Bréart G, Goffinet F. Do risk factors for elective cesarean section differ from those of cesarean section during labor in low risk pregnan- cies? J Perinatal Med 2008;36:297-305.
18. Chu KH, Tai CJ, Hsu CS, et al. Women’s preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Tai- wanese women undergoing different modes of deliv- ery. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;26:138.
19. Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socioeconomic dif- ferentials in cesarean rates in developing countries: A retrospective analysis. Lancet 2006;368:1516-1523.
20. Magann EF, Evans S, Hutchinson M, et al. Postpar- tum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: an analysis of risk factors. South Med J 2005;98:681-685.
21. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analy- sis. Health Psychol 1996;15:303-314.