Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: A Western North Carolina Perspective

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR), a primary cesarean without medical indication for a singleton, term pregnancy, has been identified by physicians as one factor in the increasing rate of cesarean delivery despite nationwide efforts to the contrary. The purpose of this project was to better understand women’s preferences and motivations for their desired mode of delivery. A 62-item survey was administered to pregnant women asking for their delivery preference, their reasons, sources of information, feelings about this pregnancy, and opinions about delivery options. Responses were analyzed for candidates for CDMR or for repeat cesarean section, separately; the standard error of measure is ±4% (95% CI). 396 patients returned surveys (response rate = 63.2%). CDMR was desired by 34/316 (11%) candidates; repeat cesarean was desired by 32/70 (46%) patients. Significant correlates of CDMR included choosing during the first trimester (22% vs. 8.2%; RR = 2.72; P = 0.015), smoking during pregnancy (19.7% vs. 7.6%; RR = 2.60; P = 0.036), and being worried about the delivery (P = 0.004). Desire for CDMR increased as worries increased from unworried (4.4%) to somewhat (11.8%) to very worried (27.6%). Primary reasons included existing medical complications and preventing birth injury. The majority of patients believed CDMR should be an “informed choice”; other opinions varied by delivery preference. The majority of women preferred vaginal deliveries suggesting little contribution of CDMR to the increasing cesarean rate. Contrary to physicians’ beliefs, the women’s primary objective was their infants’ health rather than their own well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services HP. (2010). Midcourse review. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse/default.htm. Accessed January 26, 2010.

  2. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). (1999). Ethical guidelines on human reproduction and women’s health. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 64, 317–322.

    Google Scholar 

  3. NIH State-of-the Science Conference Statement on Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request (2006). NIH Conses Sci Statements. March 27–29, 23, 1–29.

  4. Coleman, V. H., Lawrence, H., & Schulkin, J. (2009). Rising cesarean delivery rates: The impact of cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 64(2), 115–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meikle, S. F., Steiner, C. A., Zhang, J., & Lawrence, W. L. (2005). A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 105, 751–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gossman, G. L., Joesch, J. M., & Tanfer, K. (2006). Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 108(6), 1506–1516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Childbirth Connection. Mothers report cesarean views and experiences: New national Listening to Mothers survey results. Available at http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10372. Accessed December 29, 2009.

  8. Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. (2007). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 110, 1501–1504.

  9. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 Proposed Objectives. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/hp2020/Objectives/TopicAreas.aspx Accessed January 26, 2010.

  10. Minkoff, H., Powderly, K. R., Chervenak, F., & McCullough, L. B. (2004). Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 103, 387–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalish, R. B., McCullough, L. B., & Chervenak, F. A. (2008). Patient choice cesarean delivery: Ethical issues. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 20, 116–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bost, B. W. (2003). Cesarean delivery on demand: What will it cost? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 188, 1418–1423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grady, D. (2008). After Cesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost. New York Times, June 1, 2008. Available at http://www.nytimes.com. Accessed January 26, 2010.

  14. Al-Mufti, R., McCarthy, A., & Fisk, N. M. (1997). Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 73, 1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Land, R., Parry, A., Rane, A., & Wilson, D. (2001). Personal preference of obstetricians towards child birth. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 41, 249–252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gonen, R., Tamir, A., & Degani, S. (2002). Obstetricians’ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 99, 577–580.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Berholt, T., Ostberg, B., Legarth, J., & Weber, T. (2004). Danish obstetricians’ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: A nation-wide survey. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 83, 262–266.

    Google Scholar 

  18. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG News Release: New ACOG opinion addresses elective cesarean controversy. October 31, 2003. Available at www.acog/org/from_home?publications/press_releases/nr10-31-03-1.cfm. Accessed January 26, 2010.

  19. Bettes, B. A., Coleman, V. H., Zinberg, S., Spong, C. Y., Portnoy, B., DeVoto, E., et al. (2007). Cesarean delivery on maternal request: Obstetrician-gynecologists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(1), 57–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu, J. M., Hundley, A. F., & Visco, A. G. (2005). Elective primary cesarean delivery: Attitudes of urogynecologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 105(2), 301–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cotzias, C. S., Paterson-Brown, S., & Fisk, N. M. (2001). Obstetricans say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: A survey of current opinion. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 97, 15–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghetti, C., Chan, B. K. S., & Guise, J. M. (2004). Physicians’ responses to patient-requested cesarean delivery. Birth, 31, 280–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wax, J. R., CArtin, A., Pinette, M. G., & Blackstone, J. (2005). Patient choice cesarean-the Maine experience. Birth, 32(3), 203–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, T. C., Lin, H. C., Chen, C. S., & Lee, H. C. (2008). Obstetrician gender and the likelihood of performing a maternal request for a cesarean delivery. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, 136, 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karlstrom, A., Engstrom-Olofsson, R., Nystedt, A., Thomas, J., & Hildingsson, I. (2009). Swedish caregivers’ attitudes towards caesarean section on maternal request. Women and Birth, 22, 57–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mancuso, A., DeVivo, A., Fanara, G., Albiero, A., Priolo, A. M., Giacobbe, A., et al. (2008). Cesarean section on request: Are there loc-regional factors influencing maternal choice? An Italian experience. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 28(4), 382–385.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG News Release: Gallup survey reveals women ob-gyns benefit from “insider knowledge.” December 9, 2003. Available at www.acog/org/from_home?publications/press_releases/nr12-09-03-2.cfm. Accessed November 19, 2008.

  28. Gamble, J., & Creedy, D. (2000). Women’s preference for a cesarean section: Incidence and associated factors. Birth, 28(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lavender, T., Hofmeyr, G. J., Neilson, J. P., Kingdon, C., Gyte, G. M. L. (2006). Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochran Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006(3). Art No. CD004660. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD00460.pub2.

  30. Gamble, J., Creedy, D. K., McCourt, C., Weaver, J., & Beake, S. (2007). A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section. Birth, 34(4), 331–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pinott, J. A., & Pinotti, M. (1994). The cesarean epidemic in South America. JSOGC, 6, 154–157.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hildingsson, I., Radestad, I., Rubertsson, C., & Waldenstrom, U. (2002). Few women wish to be delivered by cesarean section. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 109, 618–623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wiklund, I., Edman, G., Larsson, C., & Andolf, E. (2006). Personalty and mode of delivery. Acta Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 85, 1225–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wiklund, I., Edman, G., & Andolf, E. (2007). Cesarean section on maternal request. 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 Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 86, 451–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Weaver, J. J., Statham, H., & Richards, M. (2007). Are there “unnecessary cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth, 34(1), 32–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Robson, S., Carey, A., Mishra, R., & Dear, K. (2008). Elective cesarean delivery at maternal request: A preliminary study of motivations influencing women’s decision-making. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 48, 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kingdon, C., Neilson, J., Singleton, V., Gyte, G., Hart, A., Gabbay, M., et al. (2009). Choice and birth method: Mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. BJOG, 116, 886–895.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pevzner, L., Goffman, D., Comerford, M., & Dayal, A. K. (2008). Patients’ attitudes associated with cesarean delivery on maternal request in an urban population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(5), e35–e37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kenton, K., Brincat, C., Mutone, M., & Brubaker, L. (2005). Repeat cesarean section and primary elective cesarean section: Recently trained obstetrician-gynecologist practice patterns and opinions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192, 1872–1876.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Russo, C. A., Andrews, R. M. Potentially avoidable injuries to mothers and newborns during childbirth, 2006. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Statistical Brief #74. May 2009. Available at www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb74.jsp Accessed November 15, 2010.

  41. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2010). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin # 115. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116(2), 450–463.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Robert Henderson for his contributions to the formulation of the research objective and the survey content.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MAHEC Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 93 Victoria Rd., Asheville, NC, 28801, USA

    Stephanie T. Romero, Carol C. Coulson & Shelley L. Galvin

Authors
  1. Stephanie T. Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carol C. Coulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelley L. Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley L. Galvin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romero, S.T., Coulson, C.C. & Galvin, S.L. Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: A Western North Carolina Perspective. Matern Child Health J 16, 725–734 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0769-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0769-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation