We have located links that may give you full text access.
Obstetrical providers' preferred mode of delivery and attitude towards non-medically indicated caesarean sections: a cross-sectional study.
OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetrical providers' delivery preferences and attitudes towards caesarean section without medical indication, including on maternal request, and to examine the association between provider characteristics and preferences/attitudes.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Two public and two private hospitals in Argentina.
POPULATION: Obstetrician-gynaecologists and midwives who provide prenatal care and/or labour/delivery services.
METHODS: Providers in hospitals with at least 1000 births per year completed a self-administered, anonymous survey.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider delivery preference for low-risk women, perception of women's preferred delivery method, support for a woman's right to choose her delivery method and willingness to perform caesarean section on maternal request.
RESULTS: 168 providers participated (89.8% coverage rate). Providers (93.2%) preferred a vaginal delivery for their patients in the absence of a medical indication for caesarean section. Whereas 74.4% of providers supported their patient's right to choose a delivery method in the absence of a medical indication for caesarean section and 66.7% would perform a caesarean section upon maternal request, only 30.4% would consider a non-medically indicated caesarean section for their own personal delivery or that of their partner. In multivariate adjusted analysis, providers in the private sector [odds ratio (OR) 4.70, 95% CI 1.19-18.62] and obstetrician-gynaecologists (OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.58-12.09) were more willing than either providers working in the public/both settings or midwives to perform a caesarean section on maternal request.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ethical debate surrounding non-medically indicated caesarean sections, we observe very high levels of support, especially by providers in the private sector and obstetrician-gynaecologists, as aligned with the high caesarean section rates in Argentina.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Non-medically indicated c-section? 74% of sampled Argentine OB providers support women's right to choose.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Two public and two private hospitals in Argentina.
POPULATION: Obstetrician-gynaecologists and midwives who provide prenatal care and/or labour/delivery services.
METHODS: Providers in hospitals with at least 1000 births per year completed a self-administered, anonymous survey.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider delivery preference for low-risk women, perception of women's preferred delivery method, support for a woman's right to choose her delivery method and willingness to perform caesarean section on maternal request.
RESULTS: 168 providers participated (89.8% coverage rate). Providers (93.2%) preferred a vaginal delivery for their patients in the absence of a medical indication for caesarean section. Whereas 74.4% of providers supported their patient's right to choose a delivery method in the absence of a medical indication for caesarean section and 66.7% would perform a caesarean section upon maternal request, only 30.4% would consider a non-medically indicated caesarean section for their own personal delivery or that of their partner. In multivariate adjusted analysis, providers in the private sector [odds ratio (OR) 4.70, 95% CI 1.19-18.62] and obstetrician-gynaecologists (OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.58-12.09) were more willing than either providers working in the public/both settings or midwives to perform a caesarean section on maternal request.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ethical debate surrounding non-medically indicated caesarean sections, we observe very high levels of support, especially by providers in the private sector and obstetrician-gynaecologists, as aligned with the high caesarean section rates in Argentina.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Non-medically indicated c-section? 74% of sampled Argentine OB providers support women's right to choose.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app