Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Application Technology and Women Views Regarding Increased Cesarean Section in Saudi Arabia

Amany Aly Ahmed

Abstract


This study aimed to identify women's views regarding increased cesarean section (CS) by using application technology, as well as the factors that affect their opinion in accepting or rejecting CS. Method: Quantitative method was used through cross-sectional design. Sample: Convenient sample of 104 women in Jeddah city with at least one child was participated: 54.8% had their babies delivered normally, 26% by CS, and 19.2% by both normal and CS. Data collection: The data were collected through inviting women by using application technology to distribute the electronic questionnaire. Data analysis: The data were analyzed by using the SPSS package. Results: Our study showed that the majority (86.92%) of participants accept having CS if there is risk on the mother and the baby, while 80.19% said that they accept having CS if there is risk on the baby, 47.88% of them said that they accept having CS with no reasons, and 51.52% of them said that they accept having CS just to avoid normal delivery. The reasons stated by the women for having previous CS are a narrow pelvis by 21.3% and non-opening of the uterus by 12.8%, and wrap the cord around the neck of a child by 8.5% and dangerous baby blood pressure by 6.4%. Recommendation: There is a need for enhancing women views regarding CS and there is a need for large-scale research including large geographical areas in Saudi Arabia (SA) to determine women views and attitudes regarding CS across women.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing‐Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21(2): 98–113p.

Sheldon RE, Escobedo MB, Cole D, Dayal A, Chazotte C, Minkoff H. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(2364): 946–950p.

Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015; 112(29–30): 489–495p. Published online 2015 Jul 20. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489. PMCID: PMC4555060, PMID: 26249251, Review Article.

Bogg L, Huang K, Long Q, Shen Y, Hemminki E. Dramatic increase of cesarean deliveries in the midst of health reforms in rural China. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70(10), 1544–1549p.

Nama V, Wilcock F. Caesarean section on maternal request: is justification necessary? Obstet Gynaecol. 2011; 13: 263–269p.

World Health Organization. (2010). The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. Available from: http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf.

Arjun G. Caesarean section: evaluation, guidelines and recommendations. Indian J Med Ethics. 2008; 5(3): 117–120p.

Rehan RSNN. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in a teaching hospital of Pakistan. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000; 20(5): 479–483p.

Torloni MR, Betrán AP, Montilla P, Scolaro E, Seuc A, Mazzoni A, Merialdi M. Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13(1): 78p.

Deng W, Klemetti R, Long Q, Wu Z, Duan C, Zhang WH, Hemminki E. Cesarean section in Shanghai: women’s or healthcare provider’s preferences? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14(1): 285p.

De Brouwere V, Dubourg D, Richard F, Van Lerberghe W. Need for caesarean sections in west Africa. Lancet. 2001; 359: 975–976p.

Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51(5): 725–740p.

Ajeet S, Jaydeep N, Nandkishore K, Nish R. Women's knowledge, perceptions, and potential demand towards caesarean section. Nat J Commun Med. 2011; 2(2): 244–248p.

Tschudin S. Pregnant women's perception of cesarean section on demand. J Perinat Med. 2009; 37(3): 251–256p. Doi: 10.1515/JPM.2009.042 14.

Sunday-Adeoye I. Pregnant Nigerian women's view of cesarean section. Niger J Clin Pract. 2011; 14(3): 276–279. Doi: 10.4103/1119-3077.86766 15.

Aziken M, Omo-Aghoja L, Okonofua F. Perceptions and attitudes of pregnant women towards cesarean section in urban Nigeria. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86(1): 42–47p. Doi: 10.1080/00016340600994950 15

Halpern S. SOGC joint policy statement on normal childbirth. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2009; 31(7): 602p.

Schenker JG, Cain JM. FIGO committee report. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999; 64(3): 317p.‏

Fenwick J, Staff L, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Bayes S. Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy? Midwifery. 2010; 26(4): 394–400p.‏

Edwards GJ, Davies NJ. Elective caesarean section–the patient's choice? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 21(2): 128–129p. Doi:10.1080/014

18.

Qazi Q, Akhtar Z, Khan K, Khan AH. Pregnant women view regarding cesarean section in northwest Pakistan. Trop Med Surg. 2013; 1: 105p.

Hall WA, Hauck YL, Carty EM, Hutton EK, Fenwick J, Stoll K. Childbirth fear, anxiety, fatigue, and sleep deprivation in pregnant women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonat Nurs. 2009; 38(5): 567–576p.

Fenwick J, Gamble J, Hauck Y. Reframing birth: a consequence of cesarean section. J Adv Nurs. 2006; 56(2): 121–130p.

Al Rowaily M, Abolfotouh M, Alsalem F. Cesarean section in a high-parity community in Saudi Arabia: clinical indications and obstetric outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 92p.

Long Q, Klemetti R, Wang Y, Tao F, Yan H, Hemminki E. High caesarean section rate in rural China: is it related to health insurance (New co-operative medical scheme)? Soc Sci Med. 2012; 75(4): 733–737p.

Cardoso JE, Barbosa RHS. O desencontro entre desejo e realidade: a "indústria" da cesariana entre mulheres de camadasmédias no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Physis. 2012; 22(1): 35–52p




DOI: https://doi.org/10.37628/ijwhn.v2i1.934

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.