Effect of Social Factors on Cesarean Birth in Primiparous Women: A Cross Sectional Study (Social Factors and Cesarean Birth)
,
Abstract
Background: P Cesarean delivery rates have been increasing throughout the world. Parallel to the developments in the world the cesarean rate in Turkey has risen to 48.1% in 2013. Some of the social factors were related with cesarean births. The purpose of this study was to determine cesarean birth rates and to find out social factors affecting the cesarean birth in primiparous women.
Methods: This study was conducted in Burdur Province, Turkey between the dates of 1 Jan 2012–31 Dec 2012 on 223 primiparous women. The data was collected with data collection form prepared by the researchers by using face-to-face interview technique. In these analyses, chi-square and Backward Logistic regression analyses were used.
Results: In multivariate analyses, the place of delivery (OR: 11.2 [2.9-42.46] in private hospital and OR: 6.1 [2.6-14.1] in university hospital); time of the birth (OR: 7.1 [3.1-16.0]); doctor’s effect (OR: 4.0 [1.8-8.95]) and husband’s employment status (OR: 2.23 [1.0-4.7]) have been identified as factors affecting the caesarean delivery in primiparous women.
Conclusion: Although the results do not show all of the factors affecting the caesarean delivery in primiparous women, they reveal that medical reasons are not the only reason in this increase trend. Health policy makers and health professionals are required to identify the causes of this increase and to take measures.
World Health Organization (1985). Appro-priate technology for birth. Lancet, 2:436–437.
Betrán A, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P et al. (2007). Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 21(2):98-113.
Klemetti R, Che X, Gao Y, Raven J, Wu Z, Tang S et al. (2010). Cesarean section de-livery among primiparous women in rural China: an emerg¬ing epidemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 202(1): 65.e1-6.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri En-stitüsü (1999). Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması, 1998. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü, Başba¬kanlık Devlet PlanlamaTeşkilatı Müsteşarlığı ve TÜ-BĐTAK, Ankara, Türkiye.
Hacettepe University Institute of Population Stud¬ies (2014), “2013 Turkey Demo-graphic and Health Survey”. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. T.R. Ministry of Devel¬opment and TÜ-BĐTAK, Ankara, Turkey.
Villar J, Valladeres E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Car¬olli G, Velazco A, et al. (2006). Cesar-ean delivery rates and pregnancy out-comes: The 2005 WHO Global Survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet, 367:1819-1829.
Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G (2006). Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol, 108:541-548.
Villar J, Caroroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A et al.(2007). Ma-ternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits asso¬ciated with cesarean delivery: Multicentre pro¬spective study. BMJ, 335:1025.
Lee LY, Holroyd E, Ng CY (2001). Explor-ing fac¬tors influencing Chinese women’s decision to have elective caesarean sur-gery. Midwifery, 17(4):314-22.
Khawaja M, Kabakian T, Jurdi R (2004). De-termi¬nants of caesarian section in Egypt: Evidence from the demographic and health survey. Health Policy, 69(3):273-81.
Mastaki JK (2011). Social predictors of cae-sarean section births in Italy. Afr Health Sci, 11(4): 560-565.
Tamim H, El-Chemaly SY, Nassar AH, Aaraj AM, Campbell OM, Kaddour AA, et al. (2007). Ce¬sarean delivery among nulliparous women in Beirut: Assessing predictors in nine hospitals. Birth, 34(1):14-20.
Bertollini R, DiLallo D, Spadea T, Peruci C (1992). Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode; an analysis based on birth cer¬tificates. Am J Public Health, 82 (2):257-261.
Burns LR, Geller SE, Wholey DR (1995). The ef¬fect of physician factors on the ce-sarean section decision. Med Care, 33(4):365-382.
Spetz J, Smith WM, Enis SF (2001). Physi-cian in¬centives and the timing of cesarean sections: Evidence from California. Med Care, 39(6):536-550.
Kaimal AJ, Kuppermann M (2012). Deci-sion mak¬ing for primary cesarean delivery: the role of pa¬tients and provider prefer-ences. Semin Perinatol, 36(5):384-389. DOI: 10.1053/j.sem¬peri.2012.04.024
Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J (2004). Patient choice cesarean: An evi-dence based re¬view. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 59(8):601-616.
Lo JC (2003). Patients' attitudes vs physi-cians' de¬termination implications for ce-sarean sections. Soc Sci Med, 57(1):91-96.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 45 No 6 (2016) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Cesarean sections Primiparity Social determinants Epidemiology | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
