Laura B Attanasio1, Rachel R Hardeman2, Katy B Kozhimannil2, Kristen H Kjerulff3. 1. Department of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA. 2. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Penn State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Researchers documenting persistent racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status disparities in chances of cesarean delivery have speculated that women's birth attitudes and preferences may partially explain these differences, but no studies have directly tested this hypothesis. We examined whether women's prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery differed by race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status, and whether attitudes were differently related to delivery mode depending on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. METHODS: Data were from the First Baby Study, a cohort of 3006 women who gave birth to a first baby in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2011. We used regression models to examine (1) predictors of prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery, and (2) the association between prenatal attitudes and actual delivery mode. To assess moderation, we estimated models adding interaction terms. RESULTS: Prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery were not associated with race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Positive attitudes toward vaginal delivery were associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery (AOR=0.60, P < .001). However, vaginal delivery attitudes were only related to delivery mode among women who were white, highly educated, and privately insured. CONCLUSIONS: There are racial/ethnic differences in chances of cesarean delivery, and these differences are not explained by birth attitudes. Furthermore, our findings suggest that white and high-socioeconomic status women may be more able to realize their preferences in childbirth.
OBJECTIVES: Researchers documenting persistent racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status disparities in chances of cesarean delivery have speculated that women's birth attitudes and preferences may partially explain these differences, but no studies have directly tested this hypothesis. We examined whether women's prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery differed by race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status, and whether attitudes were differently related to delivery mode depending on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. METHODS: Data were from the First Baby Study, a cohort of 3006 women who gave birth to a first baby in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2011. We used regression models to examine (1) predictors of prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery, and (2) the association between prenatal attitudes and actual delivery mode. To assess moderation, we estimated models adding interaction terms. RESULTS: Prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery were not associated with race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Positive attitudes toward vaginal delivery were associated with lower odds of cesarean delivery (AOR=0.60, P < .001). However, vaginal delivery attitudes were only related to delivery mode among women who were white, highly educated, and privately insured. CONCLUSIONS: There are racial/ethnic differences in chances of cesarean delivery, and these differences are not explained by birth attitudes. Furthermore, our findings suggest that white and high-socioeconomic status women may be more able to realize their preferences in childbirth.
Authors: Katy B Kozhimannil; Carrie A Vogelsang; Rachel R Hardeman; Shailendra Prasad Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Neda Ratanawongsa; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Mick P Couper; John Van Hoewyk; Neil R Powe Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Alexander R Green; Dana R Carney; Daniel J Pallin; Long H Ngo; Kristal L Raymond; Lisa I Iezzoni; Mahzarin R Banaji Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 5.128