Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 47, Issue 6

Issues

Socio-cultural and clinician determinants in the maternal decision-making process in the choice for trial of labor vs. elective repeated cesarean section: a questionnaire comparison between Italian settings

Stefania Triunfo
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Claudia Minciotti / Barbara Burlon / Franca Giovannangeli
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Michelangela Danza
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Saverio Tateo / Antonio Lanzone
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-06-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0041

Abstract

Objective

To identify socio-cultural and clinician determinants in the decision-making process in the choice for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) or elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) in delivering women.

Methods

A tailored questionnaire focused on epidemiological, socio-cultural and obstetric data was administered to 133 patients; of these, 95 were admitted for assistance at birth at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” (FPG) IRCCS, Rome, and 38 at S. Chiara Hospital (SCH), Trento, Italy. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression modeling were performed.

Results

Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates were higher at SCH than at FPG (68.4% vs. 23.2%; P < 0.05). Maternal age in the TOLAC/VBAC group was significantly higher at SCH than at FPG (37.1 vs. 34.9 years, P < 0.05). High levels of education and no-working condition corresponded to a lower rate of VBAC. Proposal on delivery mode after a previous CS was missed in the majority of cases. Participation in prenatal course was significantly less among women in the ERCS groups. Using logistic regression, the following determinants were found to be statistically significant in the decision-making process: maternal age [odds ratio (OR) = 0.968 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.941–0.999); P = 0.019], education level [OR = 0.618 (95% CI 0.419–0.995); P = 0.043], information received after the previous CS [OR = 0.401 (95% CI 0.195–1.252); P = 0.029], participation in antenatal courses [OR = 0.534 (95% CI 0.407–1.223); P = 0.045] and self-determination in attempting TOLAC [OR = 0.756 (95% CI 0.522–1.077); P = 0.037].

Conclusion

In the attempt to promote person-centered care, increases in TOLAC/VBAC rates could be achieved by focusing on individual maternal needs. An ad hoc strategy for making birth safer should begin from accurate information at the time of the previous CS.

Keywords: cesarean section; clinician-centered intervention; determinants; vaginal birth after cesarean; women-centered intervention

References

  • 1.

    World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ. Births in the United States, 2016. NCHS Data Brief 2017;287:1–8.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. Australia’s health 2014. Chapter 6. Health through your life. 6.2. Cesarean section. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia, p. 198.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Chung SH, Seol HJ, Choi YS, Oh SY, Kim A, Bae CW. Changes in the cesarean section rate in Korea (1982–2012) and a review of the associated factors. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1341–52.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2016;123:559–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China’s 50% delivery section rate: is it too high? Br J Obstect Gynecol 2015;122:160–5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR, et al. The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. J Am Med Assoc 2015;314:2263–70.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Robson MS. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2011;12:23–39.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    World Health Organization. WHO statement on cesarean section rates. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    ACOG Releases New Guidance Aimed at Making VBAC. October 24, 2017. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Identification of obstetric targets for reducing cesarean section rate using the Robson Ten Group Classification in a tertiary level hospital. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;189:91–5.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e217–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Lundgren I, Healy P, Carroll M, Begley C, Matterne A, Gross MM, et al. Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:350.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:16.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Colais P, Bontempi K, Pinnarelli L, Piscicelli C, Mappa I, Fusco D, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean birth in Italy: variations among areas of residence and hospitals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:383.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Draisci G, Zanfini BA, Scambia G, Lanzone A, et al. Role of maternal characteristics and epidural analgesia on caesarean section rate in groups 1 and 3 according to Robson’s classification: a cohort study in an Italian university hospital setting. Br Med J Open 2018;8:e020011.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Triunfo S, Petrillo F, Lofoco F, Volpe M, Lanzone A. Cost analysis for deliveries according to maternal age classes for moving to a personalized approach in the health care. JMFNM. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1605592. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Munro S, Kornelsen J, Corbett K, Wilcox E, Bansback N, Janssen P. Do women have a choice? Care providers’ and decision makers’ perspectives on barriers to access of health services for birth after a previous cesarean. Birth 2017;44:153–60.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Keedle H, Schmied V, Burns E, Dahlen HG. Women’s reasons for, and experiences of, choosing a homebirth following a caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:206.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Attanasio LB, Kozhimannil KB, Kjerulff KH. Women’s preference for vaginal birth after a first delivery by cesarean. Birth 2019;46:51–60.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Moffat M, Bell JS, Porter M, Lawton S, Hundley V, Danielian P, et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: a qualitative study. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2007;114:86–93.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: a narrative analysis. Birth 2014;41: 178–84.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Meddings F, Phipps FM, Haith-Cooper M, Haigh J. Vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): exploring women’s perceptions. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:160–7.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Nilsson C, Lalor J, Begley C, Carroll M, Gross MM, Grylka-Baeschlin S, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: views of women from countries with low VBAC rates. Women Birth 2017;30:481–90.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: a narrative analysis. Birth 2014;41:178–84.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Dexter S, Windsor S, Watkinson S. Authors’ reply: antenatal discussion of the risks and benefits of VBAC and ERCS. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2014;121:1441.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    OptiBirth Project. http://www.optibirth.eu/optibirth/.

About the article

Corresponding author: Stefania Triunfo, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy; and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy


Received: 2019-02-12

Accepted: 2019-05-11

Published Online: 2019-06-18

Published in Print: 2019-08-27


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

Data sharing statement: All data included in the present paper are available.


Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 656–664, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0041.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in