Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Turkish obstetricians’ personal preference for mode of delivery and attitude toward cesarean delivery on maternal request

  • Materno-fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective(s)

(1) To investigate the cesarean rate among actively practicing obstetricians in Turkey and reasons why they choose this mode of delivery for themselves/partners. (2) To investigate the attitudes, practices, and beliefs with respect to cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) among actively practicing obstetricians in Turkey.

Study design

This is a descriptive study performed at 7th Congress Of Turkish Society Of Gynecology and Obstetrics. A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. During the congress, from the obstetricians attending the congress, 500 were randomly selected; due to the room numbers, the questionnaires (total, 500) and the consent forms were distributed every fourth room. The sampled obstetricians were instructed to return the completed questionnaires and signed consent forms to the congress information desk located throughout the congress. In total, 387 (77.4%) obstetricians responded.

Results

Of the respondents (if female) or their partners (if male), 239 (61.8%) respondents had undergone at least one previous cesarean section (CS), and, of these, 212 (88.7%) were primary elective cesarean deliveries. The most common reason influencing the decision of obstetricians in choosing CS for themselves/partners was reduced anorectal trauma (63.6%). In addition, 158 (40.8%) of the respondents believe that every woman has the right to request a cesarean as a mode of delivery. About half of the respondents (53.2%) said that they would perform a patient-requested CS. The most common reason why obstetricians perform CS due to maternal request was ‘anxiety of patient and her partner and due to their insistence’.

Conclusions

Two-thirds of Turkish obstetricians prefer CS as mode of delivery for themselves/partners. Also half of the obstetricians in our study believe that a woman has the right to request and obtain CDMR, and half of them would agree to perform one.

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. Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF (2006) Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol 30(5):235–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394 (2007) Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 110(6):1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson SR, Elkins TE, Strong C, Phelan JP (1986) Obstetric decision-making: responses to patients who request cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 67:847–850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ryding EL (1991) Psychosocial indications for cesarean section—a retrospective study of 43 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 70:47–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tranquilli AL, Garzetti GG (1997) A new ethical and clinical dilemma in obstetric practice: cesarean section ‘‘on maternal request’’. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:245–246

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eftekhar K, Steer P (2000) Women choose caesarean section. BMJ 320:1072A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P, Langer M (2003) Elective cesarean section versus spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:834–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK et al (2003) Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:864–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR (2004) Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Italy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 84:169–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2:436–437

    Google Scholar 

  11. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey-2008 (internet): Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health, 2008. Available from: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2008/index.htm

  12. Hopkins K (2000) Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 51:725–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gamble JA, Creedy DK (2000) Women’s request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 27:256–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gabbe GS, Holzman GB (2001) Obstetricians’ choice of delivery. Lancet 357:722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1997) Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 73:1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Koken G, Cosar E, Sahin FK, Tolga Arioz D, Duman Z, Aral I (2007) Attitudes towards mode of delivery and cesarean on demand in Turkey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99:233–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J (2005) Patient choice cesarean—the Maine experience. Birth 32(3):203–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. MacDonald C, Pinion SB, MacLeod UM (2002) Scottish female obstetricians’ views on elective caesarean section and personal choice for delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 22:586–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1996) Obstetricians’ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 347:544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonen R, Tami A, Degani S (2002) Obstetricians’ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 99:577–580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wright JB, Wright AL, Simpson N, Bryce FC (2001) A survey of trainee obstetricians’ preferences for childbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97:23–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McGurgan P, Coulter-Smith S, O’Donovan PJ (2001) A national confidential survey of obstetricians’ personal preferences regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97:17–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Land R, Parry E, Rane A, Wilson D (2001) Personal preferences of obstetricians towards childbirth. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol 41:249–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G (2003) Flemish obstetricians’ personal preferences regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards cesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 111:164–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bergholt T, Østberg B, Legarth J, Weber J (2004) Danish obstetricians’ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83:262–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Backe B, Salvesen KA, Sviggum O (2002) Norwegian obstetricians prefer vaginal route of delivery. Lancet 359:629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M et al (2006) Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 113(6):647–656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Reime B, Klein MC, Kelly A et al (2004) Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth? BJOG 111(12):1388–1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bettes BA, Coleman VH, Zinberg S et al (2007) Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician–gynecologists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 109:57–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kingdon C, Neilson J, Singleton V et al (2009) Choice and birth method: mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. BJOG 116(7):886–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson R, Westercamp M, Furner S (2006) A systematic review of the efficacy of caesarean section in the preservation of anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1587–1595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J (2004) Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 59:601–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abenhaim HA, Benjamin A, Koby RD, Kinch RA, Kramer MS (2007) Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients’ own obstetricians. CMAJ 177:352–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Spetz J, Smith MW, Ennis SF (2001) Physician incentives and the timing of cesarean sections: evidence from California. Med Care 39:536–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryan K, Schnatz P, Greene J, Curry S (2005) Change in cesarean section rate as a reflection of the present malpractice crisis. Conn Med 69:139–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Grant D (2005) Explaining source of payment differences in US cesarean rates: why do privately insured mothers receive more cesareans than mothers who are not privately insured? Health Care Manag Sci 8:5–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robson SJ, Tan WS, Adeyemi A, Dear KB (2009) Estimating the rate of cesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Birth 36:208–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty, Kahramanmaras Sutcuimam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey

    Deniz Cemgil Arikan, Ayhan Coskun & Hakan Kiran

  2. Department of Public Health, Medical Faculty, Kahramanmaras Sutcuimam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey

    Ali Özer

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Ilker Arikan

Authors
  1. Deniz Cemgil Arikan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Özer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ilker Arikan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ayhan Coskun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hakan Kiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deniz Cemgil Arikan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arikan, D.C., Özer, A., Arikan, I. et al. Turkish obstetricians’ personal preference for mode of delivery and attitude toward cesarean delivery on maternal request. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284, 543–549 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1682-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1682-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation