Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Ramnagar, Patiala, Punjab, India
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Childbirth is regarded as an important life event for women, and growing numbers
of them are making the choice to give birth by cesarean delivery. Increasing rate of births by cesarean
section is an issue of concern in many countries. In order to reduce the rates of unnecessary cesarean
sections, it is essential to acquire information of the reasons that motivate physicians to carry out
cesarean sections rather than vaginal deliveries. The objective of present study is to evaluate whether
the education process for undergraduate medical students affects their decision‑making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was cross‑sectional and questionnaire based.
A total of 292 students participated in the study. Out of which, 150 were first‑year students and
142 were doing internship in Maharashtra Institute of Medical Education and Research (MIMER),
Talegaon Dabhade, Maharashtra, India. The study was conducted in the months of June and July
2019. Data was collected with the help of person to person interview of all the participants who
satisfied the inclusion criteria after obtaining their informed consent. The data was entered by using
Microsoft Excel 2007 and was analyzed using Epi Info version 3.3.2. The data was tabulated and
analyzed according to responses which were given by the respondents.
RESULTS: A total of 292 students answered the questionnaire. Age of participants varied between
19 and 23 years. 130 males and 162 females were the subjects, out of which 40 students declared
fear of labor. Most of the students preferred vaginal delivery over cesarean sections in all the four
scenarios. The difference of opinion was significant in case of an uneventful pregnancy and normal
pregnancy under their care. For general population as healthcare manager this difference of opinion
was not significant. In case of one’s own or partner’s delivery, internship students preferred cesarean
section but this difference was statistically non‑significant.
CONCLUSION: Most of the students would recommend vaginal delivery because this form of delivery
has fewer risks as compared to cesarean section. Majority of students chose vaginal delivery for
the birth of their own child; however, a higher number of interns as compared to first year students
preferred cesarean section. Pain associated with vaginal delivery was the most common reason
given for choosing cesarean section. The student’s preference for childbirth changed in due course
of graduation toward cesarean section. This indicates a probable effect of medical education on
permissive culture of cesarean section as a mode of delivery.
Keywords
- Zwelling E. The emergence of high‑tech birthing. J Obstetrics
Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008;37:85–93.
2. Tatar M, Gunalp S, Somunoglu S, Demirol Alu S, Demirol A.
Women’s perceptions of caesarean section: Reflections from a
Turkish teaching hospital. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:1227‑33.
3. Weaver JJ, Statham H, Richards M. Are There “Unnecessary”
Caesarean Sections? Perceptions of Women and Obstetricians
about Caesarean Sections for Non clinical Indications Birth
2007;2007:32–41.
4. Davidson MR, London ML, Ladewig PW. Olds’ Maternal
Newborn Nursing & Women’s Health Across the Lifespan. 9th ed.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education, Inc; 2012.
5. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ,
Gilstrap LC, Hankins GDV, et al. Caesarean delivery and
caesarean hysterectomy. In: Cunningham, et al., editors. Williams
Obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1997.
p. 509‑31.
6. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth.
Lancet 1985;2:436‑7.
7. Barros AJD, Santos IS, Matijasevich A, Domingues MR, Silveira M,
et al. Patterns of deliveries in a Brazilian birth cohort: Universal
Caesarean sections for the better‑off. Rev Saúde Pública
2011;45:635–43.
8. Desai G, Anand A, Modi D, Shah S, Shah K, Shah A, et al. Rates,
indications, and outcomes of caesarean section deliveries:
A comparison of tribal and non‑tribal women in Gujarat, India.
PLoS One 2017;12:e0189260.
9. Vinueza CA, Chauhan SP, Barker L. Predicting the success of trial
of labour with simple scoring the success of trial of labour with
simple scoring system. J Reprod Med 2000;45:332.
10. Kontopoulos EV, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The
influence of mode of delivery on twin neonatal mortality in
US: Variance by birthweight discordance. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2005;192:252‑6.
11. Sue M, Hannah WJ, Willan A. Planned caesarean section
decreases the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes due to both
labour and delivery complications in the term breech trial. BJOG
2004;11:1065‑74.
12. Linton A, Peterson MR. Effect of pre‑existing chronic disease on
primary caesarean delivery rates by race for birth in U.S. military
hospitals 19992002. Birth 2004;31:165‑75.
13. Wilkes PT, Wolf DM, Kronbach DW. Risk factors for caesarean
delivery at presentation of nulliparous patients in labour. Obstet
Gynecol 2003;102:1352‑7.
14. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in“no indicated risk”
primary caesareans in United States 1991‑2001. Cross sectional
analysis. BMJ 2005;330:71‑2.
15. Jamshidi Manesh M, Oskouie SF, Jouybary L, Sanagoo A. The
process of women’s decision making for selection of Caesarean
delivery. Iran J Nurs 2009;21:55‑67.
16. Safari‑Moradabadi A, Alavi A, Pormehr‑Yabandeh A,
Eftekhaari TE, Dadipoor S. Factors involved in selecting the
birth type among primiparous women. J Educ Health Promot
2018;7:55.
17. Beigi SM, Valiani M, Alavi M, Mohamadirizi S. The relationship
between attitude toward labor pain and length of the first, second,
and third stages in primigravida women. J Educ Health Promot
2019;8:130.
18. Robson S, Carey A, Mishra R, Dear K. Elective caesarean
delivery at maternal request: A preliminary study of motivations
influencing women’s decision‑making. Aust N Z J Obstet
Gynaecol 2008;48:415–20.
19. Saisto T, Halmesmaki E. Fear of childbirth: A neglected dilemma.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:201–8.
20. Farahani SM, Malekzadegan A, Mohammadi R, Hosseini F.
Effect of the one to one midwifery care during laboron modes of
delivery. Iran J Nurs 2005;18:71‑82.
21. Ridley RT, Davis PA, Bright JH, Sinclair D. What influences a
woman to choose vaginal birth after Caesarean? J Obstet Gynecol
Neonatal Nurs 2002;31:665‑72.
22. Hantoushzadeh S, Rajabzadeh A, Saadati A, Mahdanian A,
Ashrafinia N, Khazardoost S, et al. Caesarean or normal vaginal
delivery: Overview of physicians’ self‑preference and suggestion
to patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009;280:33–7. - 23. Heidari Z, Kohan S. The comparison of knowledge and attitude
of midwifery and nursing students towards natural childbirth
and caesarean section. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive
Health 2015;3:437‑43.
24. Watanabe T, Knobel R, Suchard G, Franco MJ, d’Orsi E,
Consonni EB, et al. Medical students’ personal choice for mode of
delivery in Santa Catarina, Brazil: A cross‑sectional, quantitative
study. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:57.
25. Stoll K, Fairbrother N, Carty E, Jordan N, Miceli C, Vostrcil Y,
et al. “Its all the rages these days”: University students attitude
towards vaginal and caesarean. Birth 2009;36:133‑40.
26. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu NH, Bonotti AM, Gibbons L, Sánchez
AJ, et al. Women’s preference for caesarean section: BJOG:An
International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology2011;118:391-9.
)