Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Mohammad Hossein Baghianimoghadam
- . Razieh Zolghadar
- . Behnam Baghiani Moghadam
- . Maryam Darayi
- . Fatemeh Jozy
General Practitioner, Research Consultant, Yazd, Iran
Abstract
Background: Normal vaginal delivery (NVD) is the best method of delivery, but its rate is
decreasing. Results of many studies have shown that the risk of cesarean section (CS) for both
mother and child is more than that of NVD. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) goal was to
achieve a CS rate of 15% in 2010, but this rate in most of the developing countries is over than 50%.
In this study, we try to determine the related factors influencing the method of delivery selection by
mothers in Yazd city, Iran, based on Health Belief Model (HBM). Materials and Methods: This was
a cross‑sectional study done on 130 pregnant women who presented in four clinics of Yazd. The
mothers were in 32–37 weeks of gestational age. Samples were selected by simple randomized
method. Data were collected by questionnaire by interviewing and then analyzed by analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and t‑test. Results: Mean age of samples was 42.23 ± 4.52 years. Eighty‑four
(64%) women were primigravids and 49 (37.7%) mothers were multigravids. Of them, the method
of delivery in previous pregnancy was NVD in 29 (22.3%) and CS in 20 (14.3%). In their present
pregnancy, the method of delivery was NVD in 88 (67.7%) and CS in 42 (32.3%). The Pearson
test showed a significant correlation between perceived barriers and behavior (P=0.012). Also,
there was significant relationship between perceived susceptibility and behavior (P=0.03). There
was no significant relation between other variables (perceived benefits and perceived severity).
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, perceived susceptibility and perceived barriers
were related to behavior significantly, so we must educate mothers using HBM to influence their
behavior toward selecting NVD as their delivery method.
Keywords
1996;31:10.
2. Naghibi M, Allameh Z, Mntazeri K. What is better: Painless delivery
or caesarean. 1st ed. Isfahan: Isfahan Medical University press;
p. 38‑40. 2002.
3. Schorge J, Schaffer J, Halvorson L, Hoffman B, Bradshaw K,
Cunningham F. Caesarean section and caesarean hysterectomy.
Williams gynecology. New York [etc.]: McGraw-Hill Medical, cop; 2008.
4. Rashman GB, Davies NJ, Cushman JN, Lee S. Synopsis of
Anesthesia. 12th ed. Boston: Butter and Heineman Co; 1999.
p. 522‑51.
5. Faramrzi M. Asurvey on knowledge attitude of pregnant women
to normal delivery in Babol (Persian). J Babol Univ Med Sci
2001;12:39‑42.
6. Fathian Z, Sharifi rad G, Hassanzadeh A, Fathian Z. A survey about the
effect of education on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of permanent
women to natural delivery based on HBM in khomainishahr, Tabibe
– Shargh. J Zahedan Univ Med Sci 2008;9:123-31.
7. Kaningham M. Pregnancy and delivery Williams. Translated by
Bahoush G, Esfandbar M, Zahedi A. 20th ed. Eshtiagh press; 1998.
8. James DK, Steer PJ, Weiner CP, Gonik B. High Risk Pregnancy;
Management Options. London: WB Saunders; 1994.
9. Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Pediatrician attendance at
caesarean delivery: necessary or not? Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:338-40.
10. Mattox J. Core textbook of obstetrics. United States: Edition by
mosby; 1998.
11. Marx HA. Survey of the influence of patients choice on the increase
in the caesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynecol 2001;21:124‑7.
12. Latifian Z, Meshkbid M, Daneshe- kbodi M. Reasons for doing
caesarean, is it same as the scientific. J fac Nurs Iran Med Univ,
15th year 2003;(30,31):70-8.
13. Sogaeezadeh D. Behaviors Model in health education. First edition.
Ministry of health press, Tehran: 2002.
14. Miri MR, Khani MJ, Motalbi M, Nazemi H. Using the HBM in intention
for preventing (S.T.Ds) in students. J Gonabad Med Univ 8th years
2003;1:26.
15. Bolbol Haghighi N, Ebrahimi H, Ajami ME, Frequency of natural
delivery and it’s causes in Shahrud. J Reprod Infertility 2003;3:51-8.
16. Mohammadpourasi A, Asgharian P, Rostami F, Akbaro H.
Investigation choice of delivery method type and its related factors
in pregnant women in Maraghrh. J Danesh Tandoosti Med Univ
Shahrood 2009;4:36-9.
17. Akbarzadeh K., Amidi M. The effect of health education on pregnant
women’ knowledge and attitude on caesarean section. J Ilam Univ
Med Sci 2005;13:17-25.
18. Yarandi F, Rezaee M, Eftekhar Z. The knowledge and attitude of
pregnant women about delivery methods in health centers in
Tehran. J Med Fac Guilan Univ Med Sci 2002;11:20-7.
19. Cleeton ER. Attitudes and beliefs about childbirth among college
students: Results of an educational intervention. Birth 2001;28:101‑11.
20. Gielen AC, Faden RR, O’Campo P, Kass N, Anderson J. Women
protective sexual behaviors: A test of the Health Belief Model. AIDS
Educ Prev 1994;6:1-11.
21. Marshall H. Becker, Lois A. Maiman, John P. Kirscht, Don P. Haefner
and Robert H. Drachman. The Health Belief Model and Prediction
of Dietary Compliance: A Field Experiment. J Health Soc Behav
1977;18:348-66.
22. Champion VL. Use of the health belief model in determining
frequency of breast self examination. Res Nurs Health 1985;8:373‑9.
23. Melender HL. Experience of fears associated with pregnancy and
childbirth: A study of 339 pregnant women. Birth 2002;29:101‑12.
24. Faraji-dar-khana R. A survey about knowledge and attitude of
pregnant mothers to methods of delivery. J Gilan Med Univ
2004;12:69-75.
)