Cunningham F, leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Abortion. Williams obstetrics. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010.Google Scholar
Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán 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. World Health Rep. 2010;30:1–31.Google Scholar
Laluei A, Kashanizadeh N, Teymouri M. The influence of academic educations on choosing preferable delivery method in obstetrics medical team: investigating their viewpoints. Int J Med Educ. 2009;9(1):69–78.Google Scholar
World Health Statistic. Available from: http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2012_Full.pdf. [Accessed May 4, 2013]. 2012.Google Scholar
Statistics of Iranian Ministry of Health. Health, Care and Education Office. Available from: http://behdasht.gov.ir/. [Accessed May 4, 2012]. 2011.Google Scholar
Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(25):2581–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fenwick J, Gamble J, Hauck Y. Believing in birth–choosing VBAC: the childbirth expectations of a self-selected cohort of Australian women. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(8):1561–1570.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fathian Z, Sharifirad GR, Hasanzadeh A, Fathian Z. Study of the effects of behavioral intention model education on reducing the cesarean rate among pregnant women of Khomeiny-Shahr, Isfahan, in 2006. Zahedan J Res Med Sci. 2007;9(2):123–31.Google Scholar
Mohammadpourasl A, Asgharian P, Rostami F, Azizi A, Akbari H. Investigating the choice of delivery method type and its related factors in pregnant women in Maragheh. Knowledge Health. 2009;4(1):36–9.Google Scholar
Negahban T, Ansari Jaberi A, Kazemi M. Preference method of delivery and it’s relevant causes in view of pregnant women referring to public and private clinics in Rafsanjan city. JRUMS. 2006;5(3):161–8.Google Scholar
Sharifirad GR, 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.Google Scholar
Smart DA. Attitudes, social support, and self-efficacy (ASE): a predictive model for vaginal birth intentions. Loma Linda: Loma Linda University; 2004.Google Scholar
Fardi AZ, Jafari SM. A survey for determining factors on women’s attitudes toward vaginal and cesarean delivery. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci. 2003;59(3):66.Google Scholar
Fathian Z, Sharifirad GR, Fathian Z, Pezeshkihebi F. Frequency of cesarean section and its related factors in Khomeinyshahr-Isfahan province 2005. Health Serv Res. 2011;6(4):786–93.Google Scholar
Fertman CI, Allensworth DD. Health promotion programs: from theory to practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.Google Scholar
Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, et al. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 2004.Google Scholar
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.Google Scholar
Hajian S, Vakilian K, Shariati M, Esmaeel AM. Attitude of pregnant women, midwives, obstetricians and anesthesiologists toward mode of delivery: a qualitative study. Payesh. 2011;10(1):39–48.Google Scholar
Kringeland T, Daltveit AK, Møller A. How does preference for natural childbirth relate to the actual mode of delivery? A population-based cohort study from Norway. Birth. 2010;37(1):21–7.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar
Saffari M, Shojaeizadeh D, Ghofranipour F, Heydarnia A, Pakpour A. Health education and promotion-theories, models and methods. Tehran, Iran: Sobhan Publication; 2009. p. 55–7.Google Scholar
Yari P, Abadi A, Eetemad K. Study of effective factors on delivery mode selection in pregnant women referring in to the Tehran hospitals. J Knowledge Health. 2010;5(1):130–5.Google Scholar
Chu K-H, Tai C-J, Hsu C-S, Yeh M-C, Chien L-Y. Women’s preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Taiwanese women undergoing different modes of delivery. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):1.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2017-11-23
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interests: All other authors had no conflicts of interest to be declared.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Shahid Beheshti University of medical sciences (code:116).
Authors’ contributions: MGh and BA helped in study design. SR and AL helped in analysis and interpretation of data. AA and BA drafted the manuscript. SR and MGh helped in critical revision of the manuscript.