Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of obstetric mode of delivery on childhood behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated the hypothesis that mode of delivery affects childhood behavior and motor development and examined whether there are sex-specific associations, i.e., whether males and females have different risk estimates.

Methods

Families with infants born between December 2007 and May 2008 (N = 11,134) were randomly selected and recruited to the Growing Up in Ireland study. Mode of delivery was classified into spontaneous vaginal delivery; instrumental vaginal delivery; emergency Cesarean section (CS); and elective CS. The ‘Ages and Stages Questionnaire’ was completed at age 9-months and the ‘Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’ at 3 years. Data were weighted to represent the national sample (N = 73,662) and multivariate logistic regression was used for the statistical analyses.

Results

At age 9 months, elective CS was associated with a delay in personal social skills [adjusted odds ratio, aOR 1.24; (95 % confidence interval, CI 1.04, 1.48)] and gross motor function [aOR 1.62, (95 % CI 1.34, 1.96)], whereas emergency CS was associated with delayed gross motor function [aOR 1.30, (95 % CI 1.06, 1.59)]. At age 3 years there was no significantly increased risk of an abnormal total SDQ score across all modes of delivery.

Conclusions

Children born by elective CS may face a delay in cognitive and motor development at age 9 months. No increase in total SDQ score was found across all modes of delivery. Further investigation is needed to replicate these findings in other populations and explore the potential biological mechanisms.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I (2013) Maternal and infant outcome after caesarean section without recorded medical indication: findings from a Swedish case–control study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol

  2. Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Ryding EL (2006) Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 113(6):638–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL (2011) Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 118(1):29–38

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Räisänen S, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Heinonen S (2014) Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth by caesarean section-a cross sectional study during 2000-2010 in Finland. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 14(1):120

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson James P, Kingdon C, Gyte Gillian ML (2012) Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 3:CD004660. http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.library.ucc.iedoi:10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3(abstract)

  6. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Ford JB, Todd AL, Morris JM (2012) Pathways to a rising caesarean section rate: a population-based cohort study. BMJ open 2(5)

  7. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Mathews T (1999) Births: final data for 1997. Natl Vital Stat Rep 47(18):1–96

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B (2013) Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010–2011. Pediatrics 131(3):548–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GM (2012) Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3(3)

  10. Rutter M, Bishop D, Pine D et al (2011) Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry. Wiley, New york

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goodman R, Ford T, Simmons H, Gatward R, Meltzer H (2003) Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. Int Rev Psychiatry 15(1–2):166–172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knapp M, Romeo R, Beecham J (2009) Economic cost of autism in the UK. Autism 13(3):317–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Loo K, Martens G (2007) Genetic and environmental factors in complex neurodevelopmental disorders. Curr Genomics 8(7):429

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Desbonnet L, Clarke G, Shanahan F, Dinan T, Cryan J (2013) Microbiota is essential for social development in the mouse. Mol Psychiatry 19:146–148

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sudo N, Chida Y, Aiba Y et al (2004) Postnatal microbial colonization programs the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal system for stress response in mice. J Physiol 558(1):263–275

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M et al (2010) Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(26):11971–11975

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mulle JG, Sharp WG, Cubells JF (2013) The Gut Microbiome: a New Frontier in Autism Research. Curr Psychiatry Rep 15(2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelmanson IA (2013) Emotional and behavioural features of preschool children born by Caesarean deliveries at maternal request. Eur J Dev Psychol 1–15 (ahead-of-print)

  19. Li HT, Ye R, Achenbach T et al (2011) Caesarean delivery on maternal request and childhood psychopathology: a retrospective cohort study in China. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 118(1):42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacKay DF, Smith G, Dobbie R, Pell JP (2010) Gestational age at delivery and special educational need: retrospective cohort study of 407,503 school children. PLoS Med 7(6):e1000289

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Azad MB, Konya T, Maughan H et al (2013) Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months. Can Med Assoc J 185(5):385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gardener H, Spiegelman D, Buka SL (2011) Perinatal and neonatal risk factors for autism: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Pediatrics 128(2):344–355

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glasson EJ, Bower C, Petterson B, de Klerk N, Chaney G, Hallmayer JF (2004) Perinatal factors and the development of autism—a population study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61(6):618–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McCrory C, Murray A (2013) The effect of breastfeeding on neuro-development in infancy. Matern Child Health J 17(9):1680–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly D, O’Dowd T, Reulbach U (2012) Use of folic acid supplements and risk of cleft lip and palate in infants: a population-based cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 62(600):e466–e472

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Castro PD, Kearney J, Layte R (2014) A study of early complementary feeding determinants in the Republic of Ireland based on a cross-sectional analysis of the Growing Up in Ireland infant cohort. Public health nutrition 1–11

  27. Williams J, Greene S, McNally S, Murray A, Quail A (2010) Growing up in Ireland national longitudinal study of children. The infants and their families. The Stationery Office

  28. Murray A, McNally S, Williams J, Mc Crory C (2013) Growing Up In Ireland: development from birth to three years

  29. Theunissen MHC, Vogels AGC, de Wolff MS, Reijneveld SA (2013) Characteristics of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in preschool children. Pediatrics 131(2):e446–e454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Squires J, Potter L, Bricker D (1995) The ASQ user’s guide for the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: A parent-completed, child-monitoring system. Paul H Brookes Publishing, Towson

    Google Scholar 

  31. Squires J, Bricker D, Potter L (1997) Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: ages and Stages Questionnaires. J Pediatr Psychol 22(3):313–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Albers CA, Grieve AJ (2007) Review of Bayley scales of infant and toddler development

  33. American Academy of Pediatrics COCWD (2001) Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics 118(1):192–196

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40(11):1337–1345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Vostanis P (2006) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: research and clinical applications. Curr Opin Psychiatry 19(4):367–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 38(5):581–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodman R (1999) The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 40(5):791–799

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Goodman R, Ford T, Simmons H, Gatward R, Meltzer H (2000) Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 177(6):534–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Goodman R, Ford T, Corbin T, Meltzer H (2004) Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) multi-informant algorithm to screen looked-after children for psychiatric disorders. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 13(2):ii25–ii31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mullick MSI, Goodman R (2001) Questionnaire screening for mental health problems in Bangladeshi children: a preliminary study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 36(2):94–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Glazebrook C, Hollis C, Heussler H, Goodman R, Coates L (2003) Detecting emotional and behavioural problems in paediatric clinics. Child Care Health Dev 29(2):141–149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Heikkilä K, Sacker A, Kelly Y, Renfrew MJ, Quigley MA (2011) Breast feeding and child behaviour in the Millennium Cohort Study. Arch Dis Child 96(7):635–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kelly Y, Sacker A, Gray R, Kelly J, Wolke D, Quigley MA (2009) Light drinking in pregnancy, a risk for behavioural problems and cognitive deficits at 3 years of age? Int J Epidemiol 38(1):129–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Berry JO, Jones WH (1995) The parental stress scale: initial psychometric evidence. J Soc Pers Relat 12(3):463–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Condon JT, Corkindale CJ (1998) The assessment of parent-to-infant attachment: development of a self-report questionnaire instrument. J Reprod Infant Psychol 16(1):57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Maldonado G, Greenland S (1993) Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol 138(11):923–936

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zanardo V, Svegliado G, Cavallin F et al (2010) Elective cesarean delivery: does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding? Birth 37(4):275–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S et al (2004) Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3):864–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Molkenboer J, Roumen F, Smits L, Nijhuis J (2006) Birth weight and neurodevelopmental outcome of children at 2 years of age after planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(3):624–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kulie T, Slattengren A, Redmer J, Counts H, Eglash A, Schrager S (2011) Obesity and women’s health: an evidence-based review. J Am Board Fam Med 24(1):75–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Goodman R, Scott S (1999) Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: is small beautiful? J Abnorm Child Psychol 27(1):17–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Klasen H, Woerner W, Wolke D et al (2000) Comparing the German versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) and the child behavior checklist. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 9(4):271–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Quigley M, Hockley C, Davidson L (2007) Agreement between hospital records and maternal recall of mode of delivery: evidence from 12 391 deliveries in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 114(2):195–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ryding EL, Wijma K, Wijma B (1998) Psychological impact of emergency cesarean section in comparison with elective cesarean section, instrumental and normal vaginal delivery. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 19(3):135–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K (1999) Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of delivery. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 106(3):227–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. English J (1994) Being born Caesarean: physical and psychosocial aspects. Int J Prenat Perinatal Psychol Med 6(3):381–394

    Google Scholar 

  57. Verdult R (2009) Caesarean Birth: Psychological Aspects in Adults. Int J Prenat Perinatal Psychol Med 21(1/2):17–36

    Google Scholar 

  58. Almqvist C, Cnattingius S, Lichtenstein P, Lundholm C (2012) The impact of birth mode of delivery on childhood asthma and allergic diseases—a sibling study. Clin Exp Allergy 42(9):1369–1376

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kenny LC, Lavender T, McNamee R, O’Neill SM, Mills T, Khashan AS (2013) Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcome: evidence from a large contemporary cohort. PLoS One 8(2):e56583

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dahlen HG, Tracy S, Tracy M, Bisits A, Brown C, Thornton C (2014) Rates of obstetric intervention and associated perinatal mortality and morbidity among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW (2000–2008): a linked data population-based cohort study. BMJ open 4(5):e004551

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. O’Neill SM, Khashan AS, Henriksen TB et al (2014) Does a Caesarean section increase the time to a second live birth? A register-based cohort study. Hum Reprod 29:2560–2568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Karlström A, Hildingsson I (2012) Self reported fear of childbirth and its association with women’s birth experience and mode of delivery: a longitudinal population-based study. Women Birth 25(3):114–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Lin D et al (1999) Assessment and control for confounding by indication in observational studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:749–754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K, Wood J, Reynolds MR, Petersen I (2013) Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research. BMJ 347:f6409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Khashan A, Everard C, McCowan L et al (2014) Second-trimester maternal distress increases the risk of small for gestational age. Psychol Med 1–12

  66. Li J, Olsen J, Vestergaard M, Obel C (2010) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the offspring following prenatal maternal bereavement: a nationwide follow-up study in Denmark. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 19(10):747–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Growing Up in Ireland data have been funded by the Government of Ireland through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and have been collected under the Statistics Act, 1993 of the Central Statistics Office. The project has been designed and implemented by the joint Economic and Social Research Institute (ERSI) and Trinity College Dublin (TCD) Growing Up in Ireland Study Team. This work was supported by the Masters in Public Health Programme Team, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Fourth Floor, Western Gate Building, Cork, Ireland

    Sukainah Y. Al Khalaf, Linda M. O’Keeffe & Ali S. Khashan

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Perinatal Epidemiology Centre (NPEC), Cork University Maternity Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    Sinéad M. O’Neill & Linda M. O’Keeffe

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research (INFANT), University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Sinéad M. O’Neill, Louise C. Kenny & Ali S. Khashan

  4. Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark

    Tine B. Henriksen

  5. Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    John F. Cryan

Authors
  1. Sukainah Y. Al Khalaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sinéad M. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda M. O’Keeffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tine B. Henriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louise C. Kenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John F. Cryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ali S. Khashan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Linda M. O’Keeffe or Ali S. Khashan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khalaf, S.Y.A., O’Neill, S.M., O’Keeffe, L.M. et al. The impact of obstetric mode of delivery on childhood behavior. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 50, 1557–1567 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1055-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1055-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation