Journal of Public Health

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 273–280 | Cite as

Involvement of first-time mothers with different levels of education in the decision-making for their delivery by a planned Caesarean section. Women’s satisfaction with information given by gynaecologists and midwives

Original Article



We investigated the involvement of first-time mothers, who had a planned Caesarean section, in the decision to have a Caesarean section, taking into account their different educational levels.

Subjects and methods

A self-assessment questionnaire was sent in July 2005 to women who had undergone a Caesarean section in 2004. Participants were 2,685 members of a statutory health insurance fund who had given birth by Caesarean section (response rate: 48.0%). Included were primiparae with planned Caesarean section (n = 352).


The women in this cross-sectional study felt well informed about the procedure of a section but not its consequences. They used several sources of information and were most satisfied with the information provided by doctors and midwives. Of the women in this study 20% did not have a midwife. No major differences were observed between different educational levels.


Although most women were satisfied with their decision, they felt that they did not receive enough information about the consequences of a Caesarean section. This information need could be met by a further involvement of midwives in maternity care.


Caesarean section Shared decision-making Information needs Birth 



The study was funded by the Gmünder Ersatzkasse, a German health insurance fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there are no relevant associations that might pose a conflict of interest.


  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2004) Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology, 2nd edn. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Beisecker AE, Beisecker TD (1990) Patient information-seeking behaviors when communicating with doctors. Med Care 28:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BQS Bundesgeschäftsstelle Qualitätssicherung (2008) BQS Auswertung 2007 Geburtshilfe. Accessed 22 Jul 2008
  4. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A (1999) What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 319:780–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Denk CE, Kruse LL, Jain NJ (2006) Surveillance of caesarean section deliveries, New Jersey, 1999–2004. Birth 33:203–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA (1989) Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 4:23–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J et al (2000) A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleissig A (1993) Are women given enough information by staff during labour and delivery? Midwifery 9:70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freda CM, Andersen HF, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1993) What pregnant women want to know: a comparison of client and provider perceptions. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 22:237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaeske G, Janhsen K (2008) Der GEK-Arzneimittelreport 2008. Asgard, St. AugustinGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheney AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J (1999) An investigation of women’s involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:213–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Horey D, Weaver J, Russel H (2004) Information for pregnant women about cesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, Issue 1. Art. No. CD003858. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003858.pub2
  13. Sagadyleslie M (2004) Counseling women about elective cesarean section. J Midwifery Womens Health 49:155–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System (2007) Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 176:455–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lutz U, Kolip P (2006) Die GEK-Kaiserschnittstudie. Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse, Band 42. Asgard, St. AugustinGoogle Scholar
  16. McFarlin BL (2004) Elective cesarean birth: issues and ethics of an informed decision. J Midwifery Womens Health 49:421–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menacker F, Declerq E, Macdorman MF (2006) Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol 30:235–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mould TAJ, Chong S, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S (1996) Women’s involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:1074–1077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. NICE - National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2004 Caesarean section. Clinical Guideline 13. Accessed 20 Jul 2008
  20. Niedersächsische Perinatalstatistik, Geburtskohorte 2004. Available at:
  21. O’Cathain A, Thomas K, Walters SJ, Nicholl J, Kirkham M (2002) Women’s perceptions of informed choice in maternity care. Midwifery 18:136–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD Health Data 2006. -> Kaiserschnitt. Accessed 27 Jul 2008
  23. Scheibler F, Janßen C, Pfaff H (2003) Shared-decision making: Ein Überblicksartikel über die internationale Forschungsliteratur. Soz Präventivmed 48:11–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stapleton H, Kirkham M, Thomas G (2002) Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. BMJ 324:639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tollånes MC, Thompson JM, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM (2007) Cesarean section and maternal education; secular trends in Norway, 1967–2004. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86:840–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turnbull DA, Wilkinson C, Yaser A, Carty V, Svigos JM, Robinson JS (1999) Women’s role and satisfaction in the decision to have a caesarean section. Med J Aust 170:580–583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wensing M, Elwyn G, Edwards A, Vingerhoets E, Grol R (2002) Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2:2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Bremen, Institut für Public Health und PflegeforschungBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations