Literature DB >> 18633559

Preferences and concerns for delivery: an antepartum survey.

Jessica N Bracken1, Vicki L Dryfhout, Linda M Goldenhar, Rachel N Pauls.   

Abstract

Little is known regarding patient preferences for method of delivery despite concern about rising cesarean section rates. We hypothesize that the majority of pregnant women desire a vaginal birth. An anonymous survey was distributed to pregnant women assessing demographics, pregnancy history, delivery preference, and concern for outcomes. Five-hundred fifty respondents completed the survey; 43% were nulliparous. The majority preferred vaginal delivery (89.6%). Reasons included reduced recovery pain (72%), scars (68%), and bleeding (48%). Cesarean deliveries were believed to cause more maternal injuries (39%), but affect sexual function less (35%). Nulliparas were more concerned about vaginal support damage (p = .005), sexual function changes (p < or = 0.001), and need for episiotomy (p < or = .001). Despite this, 93% of nulliparas chose vaginal birth. Increased parity was associated with preference for cesarean delivery (r = 0.108, p = 0.013). Despite nulliparas' concerns about complications of vaginal delivery, the majority of pregnant women would choose vaginal birth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18633559     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0680-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  21 in total

1.  Elective primary cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Howard Minkoff; Frank A Chervenak
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries.

Authors:  Robert M Silver; Mark B Landon; Dwight J Rouse; Kenneth J Leveno; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth A Thom; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Marshall Carpenter; Alan M Peaceman; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha Sibai; Oded Langer; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Obstetricians' opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery.

Authors:  R Gonen; A Tamir; S Degani
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: a comment on patient choice cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Nicholas S Fogelson; M Kathryn Menard; Thomas Hulsey; Myla Ebeling
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Repeat cesarean section and primary elective cesarean section: recently trained obstetrician-gynecologist practice patterns and opinions.

Authors:  Kimberly Kenton; Cynthia Brincat; Martina Mutone; Linda Brubaker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Pelvic floor morbidity at 3 years after instrumental delivery and cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor and the impact of a subsequent delivery.

Authors:  Rachna Bahl; Bryony Strachan; Deirdre J Murphy
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Primary nonmedically indicated cesarean section ("section on request"): evidence based or modern vogue?

Authors:  Sorina Grisaru; Arnon Samueloff
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.430

8.  Parity and route of delivery: does cesarean delivery reduce bladder symptoms later in life?

Authors:  Victoria L Handa; Lynn Harvey; Harold E Fox; Kristen H Kjerulff
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 9.  Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Howard Minkoff; Kathleen R Powderly; Frank Chervenak; Lawrence B McCullough
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section.

Authors:  Ingegerd Hildingsson; Ingela Rådestad; Christine Rubertsson; Ulla Waldenström
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.531

View more
  6 in total

1.  U.S. Nulliparas' Reasons for Expected Provider Type and Childbirth Setting.

Authors:  Adriana Arcia
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2015

Review 2.  Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  A Mazzoni; F Althabe; N H Liu; A M Bonotti; L Gibbons; A J Sánchez; J M Belizán
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 7.331

3.  Women's preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Agustina Mazzoni; Fernando Althabe; Laura Gutierrez; Luz Gibbons; Nancy H Liu; Ana María Bonotti; Gustavo H Izbizky; Marta Ferrary; Nora Viergue; Silvia I Vigil; Gabriela Zalazar Denett; José M Belizán
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Preferences for mode of delivery in nulliparous Argentinean women: a qualitative study.

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

5.  The preference of Iranian women to have normal vaginal or cesarean deliveries.

Authors:  Najmeh Maharlouei; Abbas Rezaianzadeh; Elham Hesami; Fariba Moradi; Ezat Mazloomi; Hassan Joulaei; Mohammad Khodayari; Kamran B Lankarani
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  Exploring First-time Pregnant Women's Motivations for Planning Vaginal Delivery: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Fatemeh Darsareh; Teamur Aghamolaei; Minoo Rajaei; Abdoulhossain Madani
Journal:  Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.