Role of mother education level in delivery method preference

Cuneyt Ardic

doi:10.22391/fppc.382429

Research Article

Doğum yöntemi tercihinde anne eğitim düzeyinin rolü

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 28 - 32, 19.04.2018

Cuneyt Ardic

https://doi.org/10.22391/fppc.382429

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Giriş: Genel
olarak, dünyada sezeryan oranı (CS) 2000 li yıllarda % 12 iken 2012'de % 15,5'e
yükseldi. Gebe kadınların doğum yöntemine karar vermesinde izlemler sırasında yapılan bilgilendirmeler
önem taşımaktadır. Kadınların doğum yöntemini etkileyen bir başka durum ise
gebe kadınların eğitim durumudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı gebe kadınlarda eğitim
düzeyinin doğum yöntemine etkisini araştırmaktır.

Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı
tipteki bu araştırma Rize ilinde
Aile Hekimliği polikliniğinde 2016 Ocak ayı ile 20017 Aralık ayları arasında
düzenli takipleri yapılan 500 gebenin katılımı ile yapılmıştır. Her bir gebenin
takibi gebeliği boyunca en az 4 kez Aile Sağlı Merkezinde yapılmıştır.
Çalışmaya katılan gebelerin doğum yöntemleri belirlenerek buna etki eden
faktörler uygun istatistiksel yöntemlerle araştırılmıştır.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya
alınan 500 gebenin 254 (%50,8) i
20-35 yaş aralığında olup çoğunluğu (n=282; %56,4) ilk-orta öğrenim mezunudur.
Çalışmaya katılan annelerin 52 (%10,4) si sigara kullanırken 104 (%20,8) ü
herhangi bir işte çalışmaktaydı. Çalışmaya katılan annelerin ortalama yaşı 28,8±9,8
dir. Doğum yöntemi ile yaş grupları arasında bir ilişki saptanmamıştır.
(p=0,651) Eğitim durumlarına hastalar ilk ve orta öğretim,lise ve üniversite
olmak üzere 3 gruba ayrıldı. Üniversite ve üstü mezun grup ilköğretim mezun
gruba göre anlamlı derecede daha fazla sezeryanla doğum yöntemini seçmekteydi
(p=0,021).

Sonuç: Dünyada
sezeryanla doğumun en çok yapıldığı ülke olan Türkiye de yaptığımız çalışmada
gebe eğitim düzeyinin yüksek olması ve sosyo-ekonomik durumun yüksek olmasını
sezeryan doğum tercihi ile ilişkili bulduk.

Keywords

Sezeryan , anne , gebelik

References

1. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni MR, Gulmezoglu AM, Betran AP. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG 2015;123(5):745–753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592
2. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme 10 April 2015. Reprod Health Matters 2015;23(45):149–150. Available from: doi: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278843
3. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997;73(1):1–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(96)02692-9
4. F. Gary Cunningham, John C. Hauth, Kenneth J. Leveno, Larry Gilstrap Iii, Steven L. Bloom, Katharine D. Wenstrom. Williams obstetrics. Williams Obstetrics 2010:1239-1326.
5. Park CS, Yeoum SG, Choi ES. Study of subjectivity in the perception of cesarean birth. Nurs Heal Sci 2005;7(1):3–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2005.00206.x
6. Donati S, Grandolfo M, Andreozzi S. Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth 2003;30:89–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00226.x
7. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, et al. Caesarean section on request: A comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;113(6):647–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00933.x
8. Neuman, M., Alcock, G., Azad, K et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in private and public health facilities in underserved South Asian communities: cross-sectional analysis of data from Bangladesh, India and Nepal. BMJ Open 2014;4(12):e005982. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005982
9. Koc I. Increased Cesarean section rates in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 2003;8(1):1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ejc.8.1.1.10
10. Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequal¬ity? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002;324(7343):942-945. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7343.942
11. Feng L, Yue Y. Analysis on the 45-year cesarean rate and its social factors. Med Soc 2002;15:14-16.
12. Liu TC, Chen CS, Tsai YW, Lin HC. Taiwan’s high rate of cesarean births: impacts of national health insur¬ance and fetal gender preference. Birth 2007;34(2):115-122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00157.x
13. Roman H, Blondel B, Bréart G, Goffinet F. Do risk factors for elective cesarean section differ from those of cesarean section during labor in low risk pregnan¬cies? J Perinatal Med 2008;36:297-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2008.044
14. Chu KH, Tai CJ, Hsu CS, et al. Women’s preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Tai¬wanese women undergoing different modes of deliv¬ery. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-138
15. Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socioeconomic dif¬ferentials in cesarean rates in developing countries: A retrospective analysis. Lancet 2006;368(9546):1516-1523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69639-6
16. Magann EF, Evans S, Hutchinson M, et al. Postpar¬tum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: an analysis of risk factors. South Med J 2005;98(7):681-685. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SMJ.0000163309.53317.B8
17. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analy¬sis. Health Psychol 1996;15(4):303-314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.15.4.303
18. Delvaux T, Buekens P, Godin I, Boutsen M. Barriers to prenatal care in Europe. Am J Prev Med 2001;21(1):52–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00315-4
19. L und KE, Lund M. Røyking og sosial ulikhet i Norge [Smoking and social inequality in Norway] (in Norwegian with English abstract). Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005; 125(5):5603.
20. England L, Zhang J. Smoking and risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review. Front Biosci 2007;12:2471–2483. doi: https://doi.org/10.2741/2248
21. Reddy UM, Branum AM, Klebanoff MA. Relationship of maternal body mass index and height to twinning. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(3);593-597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000153491.09525.dd

Role of mother education level in delivery method preference

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 28 - 32, 19.04.2018

Cuneyt Ardic

https://doi.org/10.22391/fppc.382429

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Introduction:
Cesarean
section rate (CS) has increased to 15.5% in 2012 while it was 12% in 2000s, in
general. Information during these follow-ups is very important for pregnant
women to decide on delivery method. Another aspect that affects women’s
delivery method is the education level. The objective of this study is to
investigate the effect of education level on delivery method for pregnant
women.

Method: This
descriptive study was carried out by the participation of 500 pregnant women
who were regularly followed in Family Physician Polyclinic in Rize between
January 2016 and December 2017. Each pregnant woman was followed up in Family
Health Center at least 4 times during pregnancy. Methods
of delivery of pregnants participating in the study were determined, and the
factors affecting them were investigated with appropriate statistical methods.

Results: Of 500
pregnant women included in the study, 254 (50.8%) women were between the ages
of 20-35 and the majority (n=282; 56.4%) were primary and secondary school
graduates. 52 (10.4%) of the mothers were smoking while 104 (20.8%) mothers
were working at any job. The mean age of the mothers participating to study is
28.8±9.8. No correlation was found between the delivery method and age groups.
(p=0.651) Patients were divided into three groups as primary and secondary
school graduates, high school graduates and university graduates according to
the education level. University and higher education group was significantly
choosing cesarean section more than primary school graduates groups. (p=0.021)

Conclusion: In this
study carried out in Turkey, where cesarean section is performed in the world
at most, we have figured out that there is a relation between high education
level and socio-economic status of pregnant women and cesarean delivery
preference.

Keywords

Caesarean Section , mother , pregnancy

References

1. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni MR, Gulmezoglu AM, Betran AP. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG 2015;123(5):745–753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592
2. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme 10 April 2015. Reprod Health Matters 2015;23(45):149–150. Available from: doi: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278843
3. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997;73(1):1–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(96)02692-9
4. F. Gary Cunningham, John C. Hauth, Kenneth J. Leveno, Larry Gilstrap Iii, Steven L. Bloom, Katharine D. Wenstrom. Williams obstetrics. Williams Obstetrics 2010:1239-1326.
5. Park CS, Yeoum SG, Choi ES. Study of subjectivity in the perception of cesarean birth. Nurs Heal Sci 2005;7(1):3–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2005.00206.x
6. Donati S, Grandolfo M, Andreozzi S. Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth 2003;30:89–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00226.x
7. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, et al. Caesarean section on request: A comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;113(6):647–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00933.x
8. Neuman, M., Alcock, G., Azad, K et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in private and public health facilities in underserved South Asian communities: cross-sectional analysis of data from Bangladesh, India and Nepal. BMJ Open 2014;4(12):e005982. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005982
9. Koc I. Increased Cesarean section rates in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 2003;8(1):1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ejc.8.1.1.10
10. Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequal¬ity? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002;324(7343):942-945. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7343.942
11. Feng L, Yue Y. Analysis on the 45-year cesarean rate and its social factors. Med Soc 2002;15:14-16.
12. Liu TC, Chen CS, Tsai YW, Lin HC. Taiwan’s high rate of cesarean births: impacts of national health insur¬ance and fetal gender preference. Birth 2007;34(2):115-122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00157.x
13. Roman H, Blondel B, Bréart G, Goffinet F. Do risk factors for elective cesarean section differ from those of cesarean section during labor in low risk pregnan¬cies? J Perinatal Med 2008;36:297-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2008.044
14. Chu KH, Tai CJ, Hsu CS, et al. Women’s preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Tai¬wanese women undergoing different modes of deliv¬ery. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-138
15. Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socioeconomic dif¬ferentials in cesarean rates in developing countries: A retrospective analysis. Lancet 2006;368(9546):1516-1523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69639-6
16. Magann EF, Evans S, Hutchinson M, et al. Postpar¬tum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: an analysis of risk factors. South Med J 2005;98(7):681-685. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SMJ.0000163309.53317.B8
17. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analy¬sis. Health Psychol 1996;15(4):303-314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.15.4.303
18. Delvaux T, Buekens P, Godin I, Boutsen M. Barriers to prenatal care in Europe. Am J Prev Med 2001;21(1):52–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00315-4
19. L und KE, Lund M. Røyking og sosial ulikhet i Norge [Smoking and social inequality in Norway] (in Norwegian with English abstract). Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005; 125(5):5603.
20. England L, Zhang J. Smoking and risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review. Front Biosci 2007;12:2471–2483. doi: https://doi.org/10.2741/2248
21. Reddy UM, Branum AM, Klebanoff MA. Relationship of maternal body mass index and height to twinning. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(3);593-597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000153491.09525.dd

There are 21 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	English
Subjects	Health Care Administration
Journal Section	Original Research
Authors	Cuneyt Ardic 0000-0001-8018-9314
Publication Date	April 19, 2018
Submission Date	January 22, 2018
Acceptance Date	March 22, 2018
Published in Issue	Year 2018 Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Cite

APA	Ardic, C. (2018). Role of mother education level in delivery method preference. Family Practice and Palliative Care, 3(1), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.22391/fppc.382429
AMA	Ardic C. Role of mother education level in delivery method preference. Fam Pract Palliat Care. April 2018;3(1):28-32. doi:10.22391/fppc.382429
Chicago	Ardic, Cuneyt. “Role of Mother Education Level in Delivery Method Preference”. Family Practice and Palliative Care 3, no. 1 (April 2018): 28-32. https://doi.org/10.22391/fppc.382429.
EndNote	Ardic C (April 1, 2018) Role of mother education level in delivery method preference. Family Practice and Palliative Care 3 1 28–32.
IEEE	C. Ardic, “Role of mother education level in delivery method preference”, Fam Pract Palliat Care, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 28–32, 2018, doi: 10.22391/fppc.382429.
ISNAD	Ardic, Cuneyt. “Role of Mother Education Level in Delivery Method Preference”. Family Practice and Palliative Care 3/1 (April2018), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.22391/fppc.382429.
JAMA	Ardic C. Role of mother education level in delivery method preference. Fam Pract Palliat Care. 2018;3:28–32.
MLA	Ardic, Cuneyt. “Role of Mother Education Level in Delivery Method Preference”. Family Practice and Palliative Care, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 28-32, doi:10.22391/fppc.382429.
Vancouver	Ardic C. Role of mother education level in delivery method preference. Fam Pract Palliat Care. 2018;3(1):28-32.