Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran


Introduction: The rate of caesarean delivery is increasing worldwide. Maternal beliefs may be
influential on the mode of delivery. This study aimed to validate pregnant women’s preferences
for mode of delivery questionnaire among pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This was
a cross‑sectional study which was done in Ahvaz Public and Private Health Care Centers. A total
of 342 low‑risk pregnant women were included in a study conducted in spring 2011 in Ahvaz,
Iran. After careful consideration and performing content and face validity, a 62‑item measure
was developed and subjects completed the questionnaire. Reliability was estimated using
internal consistency and validity was assessed by performing face, content and structure and
discriminate validity. Data were analyzed using explanatory factor analysis, t‑test, and correlations
in SPSS 16. Results: The findings of content and face validity showed almost perfect results for
both content validity ratio = 1 and content validity index = 1. The explanatory factor analysis
indicated a 7‑subscale measure (Eigenvalue >1, factor loading >0.4), and discriminate validity
revealed satisfying results P < 0.05 for 6 out of 7 subscales. Internal consistency as measured
by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was acceptable for subscales. Conclusions: In general,
the findings suggest that this newly generated scale is a reliable and valid specific questionnaire
for assessing pregnant women’s preferences for mode of delivery. However, further studies are
needed to establish stronger psychometric properties for the questionnaire.


1. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the
increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007;18:485‑6.
2. Mungrue K, Nixon C, David Y, Dookwah D, Durga S, Greene K, et al.
Trinidadian women’s knowledge, perceptions, and preferences
regarding cesarean section: How do they make choices? Int J
Womens Health 2010;2:387‑91.
3. Kushtagi P, Guruvare S. Documenting indications for cesarean
deliveries. J Postgrad Med 2008;54:52‑3.
4. Rozenberg P. Evaluation of cesarean rate: A necessary progress
in modern obstetrics. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris)
5. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomez R, Rojas I,
Caughey AB. Chilean women’s preferences regarding mode of
delivery: Which do they prefer and why? BJOG 2006;113:1253‑8.
6. Badakhsh MH, Seifoddin M, Khodakarami N, Gholami R, Moghimi S.
Rise in cesarean section rate over a 30‑year period in a public
hospital in Tehran, Iran. Arch Iran Med 2012;15:4‑7.
7. Soltani H, Sandall J. Organisation of maternity care and choices of
mode of birth: A worldwide view. Midwifery 2012;28:146‑9.
8. Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: The paradox. Lancet
9. Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Spong CY, Dashe J. Williams
Obstetrics 24/E. 24th ed. New York, USA: McGraw Hill Professional;
10. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GM.
Caesarean section for non‑medical reasons at term. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD004660.
11. Nouri TS. Relationship of knowledge and attitude with reasons
for cesarean selection among pregnant women of Rasht health
centers that were applicant for cesarean. J Guilan Univ Med Sci
12. Devendra K, Arulkumaran S. Should doctors perform an elective
caesarean section on request? Ann Acad Med Singapore
13. Pezeshki Z, Pezeshk S. Educating quaternary prevention (P4) in
Iran for decreasing the harms and costs of unnecessary services
in clinical medicine and public health. Payesh 2013;12:329‑32.
14. Tita AT, Landon MB, Spong CY, Lai Y, Leveno KJ, Varner MW, et al.
Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal
outcomes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:111‑20.
15. Jurdi R, Khawaja M. Caesarean section rates in the Arab region: A
cross‑national study. Health Policy Plan 2004;19:101‑10.
16. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish obstetricians’
personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude
towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 2003;111:164‑6.
17. NarimaniMR, Tabrizi JS, AminiA, ShaghaghiA, Asghari‑JafarabadiM,
Aydilou NA. Development and psychometric properties of a new
tool to assess justification and practice of patient rights (JPPR).
J Clin Res Gov 2014;3:81‑91.
18. Bagheri A, Masoudi Alavi N, Abbaszadeh F. Iranian obstetricians’
views about the factors that influence pregnant women’s choice of
delivery method: A qualitative study. Women Birth 2013;26:e45‑9.
19. Hajian S, Shariati M, Najmabadi KM, Yunesian M, Ajami ME.
Psychological predictors of intention to deliver vaginally through
the extended parallel process model: A mixed‑method approach
in pregnant Iranian women. Oman Med J 2013;28:395‑403.
20. Araban M, Tavafian SS, Motesaddi Zarandi S, Hidarnia AR,
Gohari MR, Prochaska JM, et al. Introducing a new measure for
assessing self‑efficacy in response to air pollution hazards for
pregnant women. J Environ Health Sci Eng 2013;11:16.
21. Ghotbi F, Akbari Sene A, Azargashb E, Shiva F, Mohtadi M,
Zadehmodares S, et al. Women’s knowledge and attitude towards
mode of delivery and frequency of cesarean section on mother’s
request in six public and private hospitals in Tehran, Iran, 2012.
J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40:1257‑66.
22. Bandura A. Self‑efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychol Rev 1977;84:191‑215.
23. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health Behavior and Health
Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
24. Yazdizadeh B, Nedjat S, Mohammad K, Rashidian A, Changizi N,
Majdzadeh R. Cesarean section rate in Iran, multidimensional
approaches for behavioral change of providers: A qualitative study.
BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:159.
25. Munro BH. Statistical Methods for Health Care Research. London:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
26. Khorsandi M, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Jahani F, Rafiei M. Cultural
adaptation and psychometric testing of the short form of Iranian
childbirth self efficacy inventory. Iran Red Crescent Med J
27. Khorsandi M, Ghofranipour F, Faghihzadeh S, Hidarnia A,
Bagheban AA, Aguilar‑Vafaie ME. Iranian version of childbirth
self‑efficacy inventory. J Clin Nurs 2008;17:2846‑55.
28. Zamani F, Shahry P, Kalhori M. Factors influencing cesarean section:
A theory based study. Daneshvar 2011;19:1‑10.
29. Lowe NK. Maternal confidence for labor: Development of the
childbirth self‑efficacy inventory. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:141‑9.
30. Penna L, Arulkumaran S. Cesarean section for non‑medical reasons.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;82:399‑409.
31. Ip WY, Tang CS, Goggins WB. An educational intervention to
improve women’s ability to cope with childbirth. J Clin Nurs
32. Liu NH, Mazzoni A, Zamberlin N, Colomar M, Chang OH, Arnaud L,
et al. Preferences for mode of delivery in nulliparous Argentinean
women: A qualitative study. Reprod Health 2013;10:2.33. Fenwick J, Staff L, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Bayes S. Why do women
request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy?
Midwifery 2010;26:394‑400.
34. Yilmaz SD, Bal MD, Beji NK, Uludag S. Women’s preferences of
method of delivery and influencing factors. Iran Red Crescent Med
J 2013;15:683‑9.
35. Guittier MJ, Cedraschi C, Jamei N, Boulvain M, Guillemin F. Impact
of mode of delivery on the birth experience in first‑time mothers:
A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:254.
36. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu NH, Bonotti AM, Gibbons L, Sánchez AJ,
et al. Women’s preference for caesarean section: A systematic
review and meta‑analysis of observational studies. BJOG
37. Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow J, Benness C, Phipps H.
Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: The
views of pregnant women and clinicians. BJOG 2008;115:1494‑502.
38. Corrigan JD. Development of a scale for assessment of agitation
following traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol
39. Hajizadeh E, Asghari M. Statistical methods and analysis in health
and biosciences a research methodological approach. Tehran:
Jahade Daneshgahi Publications; 2011.