DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184119

Caesarean section on demand: a hospital-based study

Mahvish Qazi, Najmus Saqib

Abstract


Background: The aim of the study was to find out the reasons behind healthy women preferring cesarean section (CS) in the absence of obstetric and medical indications.

Methods: This was a prospective study among women who came for delivery at ASCOMS, Jammu (Jammu and Kashmir), India a tertiary level teaching hospital. All women who underwent caesarean delivery for maternal request were included in this study.

Results: The total number of deliveries during the study period (9 months) were 889. There were 636 (71.54%) vaginal deliveries and 253 (28.46%) CSs. Among 253 CSs, 25 (9.88%) had maternal request as their indication. Majority 13 (52%) of them were in the age group of 20 - 25 years. Multigravida opted for CS more than primigravida (17 versus 8). Most 10 (40%) of them were Graduates and 15 (60%) were working. Majority of them 13 (52%) were in class II socioeconomic status of Kuppuswamy’s scale. The various reasons for women requesting cesarean delivery were refusal of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC), simultaneous tubectomy, painless delivery, prolonged infertility, afraid of neonatal outcome and astrological concerns.

Conclusions: Most of the women who opted for cesarean delivery in our study was for preventable reasons like painless labor, previous negative birth experience and simultaneous tubectomy which would have been avoided by prior counseling starting from antenatal period and by providing labor analgesia. Proper education of the patient and personal involvement of the treating obstetrician in counselling the patient and her supporters can reduce cesarean delivery for maternal request.


Keywords


Cesarean delivery, Maternal request, Painless labor

Full Text:

PDF

References


Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1796-7.

Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335(7628):1025.

WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF, AMDD. Monitoring emergency obstetric care a handbook. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241547734_eng.pdf.

Zahr CA, Wardlaw TM, Choi Y. Maternal mortality in 2000: estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA. World Health Organization; 2004.

MacKenzie IZ. Should women who elect to have caesarean sections pay for them?. BMJ: British Med J. 1999;318(7190):1070.

Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Wojdyla D. Determinants of caesarean section rates in developed countries: supply, demand and opportunities for control. World Health Report. 2010;29.

Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9239):1375-83.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559: cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):904-7.

Mi J, Liu F. Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet. 2014;383(9927):1463-4.

Ouyang YQ, Zhang Q. A study on personal mode of delivery among Chinese obstetrician-gynecologists, midwives and nurses. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(1):37-41.

Harris A, Gao Y, Barclay L, Belton S, Yue ZW, Min H, et al. Consequences of birth policies and practices in post-reform China. Reprod Health Matters. 2007;15(30):114-24.

Lee LY, Holroyd E, Ng CY. Exploring factors influencing Chinese women’s decision to have elective caesarean surgery. Midwifery. 2001;17(4):314-22.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Caesarean Delivery on Maternal Request (CDMR). C-Obs 39. Melbourne VIC: RANZCOG; 2013. Available at: www.ranzcog.edu.au/college-statements-guidelines.html.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean Section. CG132. London: NICE; 2011. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG132/ chapter/Woman-centred-care.

Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Caesarean section: every woman's right to choose? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(6):351-5.

National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386-97.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence report/technology assessment No. 133: Cesarean delivery on maternal request, 2006.

Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population-based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):942-5.

Pakenham S, Chamberlain SM, Smith GN. Women's views on elective primary caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28(12):1089-94.

Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, Advisory. C-Sections on Demand-SOGC's Position, March 10, 2004. Available at: http://www.sogc.org.

Mcmahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second caesarean section. New England J Med. 1996;75:912-6.

Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1226-32.

D'Souza R, Arulkumaran S. To 'C' or not to 'C'? Caesarean delivery upon maternal request: a review of facts, figures and guidelines. J Perinat Med. 2013;41(1):5-15.