OBJECTIVE: Elective primary Caesarean section (EPCS), Caesarean section performed at a woman's request in the absence of a recognized obstetrical indication, is becoming increasingly common. Recent articles and opinions in both the medical and lay press have polarized this issue. The purpose of this study was to determine the opinions and choices of nulliparous and multiparous women with respect to mode of delivery. METHODS: All women attending antenatal clinics at Kingston General Hospital from May to August 2005 were invited to participate in a confidential survey. Basic demographic data including maternal age, level of education, parity, and previous mode of delivery were collected. Respondents who had had a previous Caesarean section were excluded from data analysis. The questionnaire provided a written statement of potential benefits and risks of an EPCS compared with vaginal delivery; no other counselling was provided. Respondents were asked if EPCS should be offered to all women and whether they would choose EPCS if given the choice. Respondents were also asked to indicate the most and least influential factors in their decision. RESULTS: Responses were received from 107 nulliparous women and 103 multiparous women. Thirteen percent of nulliparas (14/107) stated that they would choose EPCS if given the option, compared with 5% of multiparas (5/103). Fifty-one percent of nulliparas (55/107) and 28% of multiparas (29/103) believed that EPCS should be offered to all women receiving antenatal care. The most and least important reasons, chosen from a list, for requesting or declining EPCS varied between nulliparas and multiparas. The convenience of scheduling permitted by Caesarean section was not important for either multiparas or nulliparas. The perceived risks of vaginal delivery were commonly cited by both nulliparas and multiparas as reasons for requesting EPCS, whereas the risks of Caesarean section for the baby or for future pregnancies were the most commonly cited reasons to decline EPCS in both groups. Regardless of the decision to request or decline EPCS, cost to the health care system was not an important factor for either nulliparas or multiparas. CONCLUSION: The majority of pregnant women surveyed would not request an EPCS. However, a significant number of pregnant women, both nulliparous and multiparous, felt that women should be given the option of undergoing EPCS.
OBJECTIVE: Elective primary Caesarean section (EPCS), Caesarean section performed at a woman's request in the absence of a recognized obstetrical indication, is becoming increasingly common. Recent articles and opinions in both the medical and lay press have polarized this issue. The purpose of this study was to determine the opinions and choices of nulliparous and multiparous women with respect to mode of delivery. METHODS: All women attending antenatal clinics at Kingston General Hospital from May to August 2005 were invited to participate in a confidential survey. Basic demographic data including maternal age, level of education, parity, and previous mode of delivery were collected. Respondents who had had a previous Caesarean section were excluded from data analysis. The questionnaire provided a written statement of potential benefits and risks of an EPCS compared with vaginal delivery; no other counselling was provided. Respondents were asked if EPCS should be offered to all women and whether they would choose EPCS if given the choice. Respondents were also asked to indicate the most and least influential factors in their decision. RESULTS: Responses were received from 107 nulliparous women and 103 multiparous women. Thirteen percent of nulliparas (14/107) stated that they would choose EPCS if given the option, compared with 5% of multiparas (5/103). Fifty-one percent of nulliparas (55/107) and 28% of multiparas (29/103) believed that EPCS should be offered to all women receiving antenatal care. The most and least important reasons, chosen from a list, for requesting or declining EPCS varied between nulliparas and multiparas. The convenience of scheduling permitted by Caesarean section was not important for either multiparas or nulliparas. The perceived risks of vaginal delivery were commonly cited by both nulliparas and multiparas as reasons for requesting EPCS, whereas the risks of Caesarean section for the baby or for future pregnancies were the most commonly cited reasons to decline EPCS in both groups. Regardless of the decision to request or decline EPCS, cost to the health care system was not an important factor for either nulliparas or multiparas. CONCLUSION: The majority of pregnant women surveyed would not request an EPCS. However, a significant number of pregnant women, both nulliparous and multiparous, felt that women should be given the option of undergoing EPCS.
Authors: Nancy H Liu; Agustina Mazzoni; Nina Zamberlin; Mercedes Colomar; Olivia H Chang; Lila Arnaud; Fernando Althabe; José M Belizán Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 3.223