Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Intention for Cesarean Section Versus Vaginal Delivery Among Pregnant Women in Isfahan: Correlates and Determinants

Authors
Zahra Shams-Ghahfarokhi 1
Farideh Khalajabadi-Farahani 2
1 Department of Demography, Allameh Tabatabaie University, Tehran, Iran
2 National Institute for Population Studies and Comprehensive Management, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Background: Iran has the second highest rate of cesarean section in the world. the corresponding rate in the third metropolitan city of Iran, Isfahan, is even higher. This paper aimed to assess correlates and determinants of intention for cesarean section versus normal vaginal delivery (NVD) among pregnant women in Isfahan. Methods: A study was conducted among 400 pregnant women aged 18-38 years, with gestational age of 24-40 weeks who attended labor clinics of nine hospitals in Isfahan during June and July 2014. Probability proportional to size was used to estimate the number of cases required to be selected for each hospital. T-test, chi-square and logistic regression analysis were employed to analyze the data. Results: Mean age of women was 26.6±4.4 years. Multivariate analysis identified selected factors as determinants of intention for CS. These were "the role of physician" (OR=1.33, p<0.001), "subjective norms" (OR=1.19, p<0.01) and "body Image" (OR=1.46, p<0.001) upon control of education, income and intended fertility (number of children intended). Moreover, path analysis showed that "attitude towards cesarean section" and "individualism" influence CS decision through subjective norm. Conclusion: Choosing cesarean section voluntarily is a multifaceted decision which is shaped by various factors; hence, comprehensive interventions are suggested to discourage voluntary cesarean section. These interventions need to encompass changes in physicians’ role, social norms, body image and correcting misperceptions among women towards CS and NVD during prenatal courses.
Keywords
Cesarean section
determinants
Iran
Vaginal Delivery
  1. Garmaroudi GR, Eftekhar H, Batebi A. [Factors that affect cesarean among pregnant women]. Payesh J. 2002;1(2):45-9. Persian.
  2. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. 32 p. Report No.:30.
  3. Zhao Y, Chen S. Psychosocial factors for women requesting cesarean section. Int J Clin Med. 2013;4(9):395-9.
  4. Miri Farahani L, Abbasi Shavazi MJ. [Cesarean section change trends in Iran and some demographic factors associated with in them in the past three decades]. Fasa Univ Med Sci Mag. 2012;2(3):127-34. Persian.
  5. Baigi M, Rahimi EA. [The effect of Caesarean section on bringing about secondry infertility]. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Med Sci. 2005;9(2):40-4. Persian.
  6. Saraei H. [Second demographic transition with a glance at the Iran]. J Popul Assoc Iran. 1999;6:118-40. Persian.
  7. Abassi-Shavazi MJ. Below replacement- level fertility in Iran: Progress and prospect. Paper presented at: IUSSP Seminar on international perspective on low fertility; trends, theories and policies; 2001 Mar 21-23; Tokyo, Japan.
  8. Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Ministry of Health and Medical Education Performance In the eleven government, Annual Report. Tehran: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; 2014 Nov. 10 p.
  9. Ghadimi MR, Rasouli M, Motahar S, Lajevardi Z, Imani A, Chobsaz A, et al. [Affecting factors the choice of delivery and attitude of pregnant women admitted to the civil hospitals, the Social security organization in 2013]. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci. 2014;21(2):310-8. Persian.
  10. Alimohammadzadeh Kh, Mohebi SF, Labaf T. [Systematic review of research papers in the recent three decades on the "reasons of cesarean section” and population health management strategies in Iran]. Women's strateg stud. 2013;16(61):8-57. Persian.
  11. Lotfi R, Tehrani FR, Dovom MR, Torkestani F, Abedini M, Sajedinejad S. Development of strategies to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Iran 2012-2014: a mixed methods study. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(12):1552-66.
  12. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Deci Process. 1991;50(2):179-211.
  13. Ajzen I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665-83.
  14. Conrad P. The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. 1st ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007. p. 4.
  15. Hosseini L, Iran-Pour E, Safarinejad MR. Sexual function of primiparous women after elective cesarean section and normal vaginal delivery. Urol J. 2012;9(2):498-504.
  16. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet. 2000;356(9242):1677-80.
  17. Pollack J, Nordenstam J, Brismar S, Lopez A, Altman D, Zetterstrom J. Anal incontinence after vaginal delivery: a five-year prospective cohort study. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(6):1397-402.
  18. Safarinejad MR, Kolahi AA, Hosseini L. The effect of the mode of delivery on the quality of life, sexual function, and sexual satisfaction in primiparous women and their husbands. J Sex Med. 2009;6(6):1645-67.
  19. Sharifirad GHR, Fathian Z, Tirani M, Mahaki B. [Study on behavioral intention model (BIM) to the attitude of pregnant women toward normal delivery and cesarean section in province of Esfahan-Khomeiny Shahr-1385]. J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2007;15(1):19-23. Persian.
  20. Mirzaei H, Vosogh M. [Individualism: Reflection on the dimensions and indicators]. J Soci Sci lett. 2008;16(34):117-42. Persian.
  21. Ghiasvand A. Application of statistics and SPSS software for data analysis. 1st ed. Tehran: Teesa; 2013. 213 p.
  22. Bolbol Haghighi N, Ebrahimi H, Ajami ME. [Comparison of frequency of vaginal delivery with cesarean section and its causes in Shahroud (2000)]. J Reprod Infertil. 2002;3(2):50-8. Persian.
  23. Khalajabadi Farahani F, Saraie H. [Intention for single child and it's determinants amongst men and women owned one child under five in Tehran]. J Popul Assoc Iran. 2012;7(13):118-48. Persian.
  24. Penna L, Arulkumaran S. Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82(3):399-409.
  25. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies? Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(3):253-6, 259.
  26. Faraji Darkhaneh R, Zahiri Sooroori Z, Farjad Bastani F. [A survey of knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women about delivery methods]. J Guilan Univ Med Sci. 2003;12(46):69-75. Persian.
  27. Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(5):725-40.
  28. Rashman GB, Davies NJ, Cashman JN. Lee's Synopsis of Anesthesia. 12th ed. Boston: ButterWorth-Heinemann; 1999. p. 522-51.
  29. Ahmadi F, Siahbazi S, Akhbari F. Incomplete cesarean scar rupture. J Reprod Infertil. 2013;14(1):43-5.
  30. Yamasmit W, Chaithongwongwatthana S. Attitude and preference of Thai pregnant women towards mode of delivery. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95(5):619-24.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 17, Issue 4
Autumn 2016
Pages 230-239