What is Turkish Women's Opinion About Vaginal Delivery?

Overview

Journal Turk J Obstet Gynecol

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2017 Sep 16

PMID 28913047

Citations 1

Authors

Gulsah Ilhan

Fatma Ferda Verit Atmaca

Meryem Eken

Zehra Tavukcuoglu

Aysegul Ozel

Mucize Ozdemir

Emre Sinan Gungor

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine Turkish women's opinion about vaginal birth.

Materials And Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Süleymaniye Maternity Research and Training Hospital in İstanbul, Turkey, between February 2015 and April 2015. The participants of this study were 100 primiparous pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries. The women were interviewed face-to-face after the birth. Data were collected through a socio-demographic and clinical questionnaire.

Results: Ninety percent of the women reported vaginal birth as the ideal mode of delivery route; a minority of the women (10%) had decided on cesarean birth before having a vaginal birth. Anxiety of pain was the major factor that influenced choice of delivery type before giving birth. After vaginal birth, 84% of women were satisfied with vaginal birth and reported that they would prefer vaginal birth for their next pregnancy. However, 16% reported that they would prefer cesarean birth for their next pregnancy due to pain of labor, pain of episiotomy, anxiety, and prolonged duration of labor.

Conclusion: The results suggest the majority of women prefer to give birth vaginally and reported vaginal birth as the ideal choice.

Citing Articles

Women's experience of episiotomy: a qualitative study from China.

He S, Jiang H, Qian X, Garner P BMJ Open. 2020; 10(7):e033354.

PMID: 32690494 PMC: 7371141. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033354.

References

Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U . Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG. 2002; 109(6):618-23. View

OBoyle A, OBoyle J, Calhoun B, Davis G . Pelvic organ support in pregnancy and postpartum. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16(1):69-72. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1210-4. View

Lin H, Xirasagar S . Maternal age and the likelihood of a maternal request for cesarean delivery: a 5-year population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192(3):848-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.133. View

Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Ryding E . Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. BJOG. 2006; 113(6):638-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00950.x. View

Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Fanara G, Settineri S, Triolo O, Giacobbe A . Women's preference on mode of delivery in Southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006; 85(6):694-9. DOI: 10.1080/00016340600645255. View

Landon M, Spong C, Thom E, Hauth J, Bloom S, Varner M . Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108(1):12-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224694.32531.f3. View

Visco A, Viswanathan M, Lohr K, Wechter M, Gartlehner G, Wu J . Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108(6):1517-29. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000241092.79282.87. View

Weaver J, Statham H, Richards M . Are there "unnecessary" cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth. 2007; 34(1):32-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00144.x. View

Pang S, Leung D, Leung T, Lai C, Lau T, Chung T . Determinants of preference for elective caesarean section in Hong Kong Chinese pregnant women. Hong Kong Med J. 2007; 13(2):100-5. View

10.

Wiklund I, Edman G, Andolf E . Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86(4):451-6. DOI: 10.1080/00016340701217913. View

11.

Gamble J, Creedy D, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S . A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section. Birth. 2007; 34(4):331-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00193.x. View

12.

Wiklund I, Edman G, Ryding E, Andolf E . Expectation and experiences of childbirth in primiparae with caesarean section. BJOG. 2008; 115(3):324-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01564.x. View

13.

DeLancey J, Low L, Miller J, Patel D, Tumbarello J . Graphic integration of causal factors of pelvic floor disorders: an integrated life span model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(6):610.e1-5. PMC: 2764236. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.001. View

14.

Cesaroni G, Forastiere F, Perucci C . Are cesarean deliveries more likely for poorly educated parents? A brief report from Italy. Birth. 2008; 35(3):241-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00245.x. View

15.

Kringeland T, Daltveit A, Moller A . What characterizes women in Norway who wish to have a caesarean section?. Scand J Public Health. 2009; 37(4):364-71. DOI: 10.1177/1403494809105027. View

16.

Nieminen K, Stephansson O, Ryding E . Women's fear of childbirth and preference for cesarean section--a cross-sectional study at various stages of pregnancy in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009; 88(7):807-13. DOI: 10.1080/00016340902998436. View

17.

Ahmad-Nia S, Delavar B, Eini-Zinab H, Kazemipour S, Mehryar A, Naghavi M . Caesarean section in the Islamic Republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. East Mediterr Health J. 2010; 15(6):1389-98. View

18.

Rebelo F, da Rocha C, Cortes T, Dutra C, Kac G . High cesarean prevalence in a national population-based study in Brazil: the role of private practice. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89(7):903-8. DOI: 10.3109/00016349.2010.484044. View

19.

Karlstrom A, Nystedt A, Johansson M, Hildingsson I . Behind the myth--few women prefer caesarean section in the absence of medical or obstetrical factors. Midwifery. 2010; 27(5):620-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.05.005. View

20.

Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu N, Bonotti A, Gibbons L, Sanchez A . Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG. 2010; 118(4):391-9. PMC: 3312015. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x. View