medigraphic.com
ISSN 0187-5337 (Print)
Instituto Nacional de Perinatología

2011, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Perinatol Reprod Hum 2011; 25 (4)

Cesarean section tendencies and associated factors: validation of a survey in Mexico

Vallejos-Parás A, Espino-y-Sosa S, Ruiz-Sánchez J, Durán-Arenas L

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 212-218
PDF size: 126.01 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The WHO determined an ideal rate of 15% of c-section deliveries, but in Mexico during 2009, the c-section was done in 41% of the deliveries. Objective: design and validate a survey to determine cesarean section tendencies and associated factors. Methods: A survey with 74 items including the following: sociodemographic characteristics, preferences, competence, and attitudes of Ob Gyns about the indications for c-section, was presented. It was validated in appearance, content, constructo and internal consistency. Eighteen Ob Gyns evaluated the appearance of the instrument, while the content was validated by a group of health professionals with doctor degree, master degree, and general practitioners. The internal consistency was evaluated by the application of the survey to 30 Ob Gyns, and Cronbach’s alpha and Hotelling’s T squared distribution, were used. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was done, to determine those Ob Gyns who performed more percentage of c-section. Results: There were 13 items eliminated from the original survey, leaving 61; 16 for the sociodemographic aspects, 14 related with medical preferences of the pregnancy resolution, 11 items about the medical attitude related of c-section without clinical indication, 17 items about obstetrician’s willingness to perform a caesarean section on maternal request; and three about the rights of woman to decide about the way of birth. Twenty-two minutes was the mean time of response (range 12-45 minutes). With Cronbach’s alpha and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, it was determined those Ob Gyns who performed more percentage of c-sections, with a success of 80% and a predictive capacity of 0.862. The risk of perform 50% or more c-sections was established when medical doctors obtained 42 points or more in the survey (RR = 1.714, IC 95% = 1.004-2.926, p = 0.038). Conclusions: The use of this validated survey allowed the knowledge of factors influence in elective caesarean section.


REFERENCES

  1. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 20: 431-4.

  2. World Health Organization. Appropiate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 326: 436-7.

  3. Smith GC, Cordeaux Y, White IR, Pasupathy D, Missfelder-Lobos H, Pell JP et al. The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates. PLoS Medicine 2008; 5: 1123-32.

  4. Sereno CJA. Razones en pro y en contra de la operación cesárea. Ginecol Ostet Mex 1999; 67: 353-5.

  5. Boletín de Información Estadística. Volumen III. No. 27. Servicios otorgados y Programas sustantivos. Dirección General de Información en Salud. Secretaría de Salud. 2009. http://sinais.salud.gob.mx/publicaciones/bie.html

  6. Zupancic JA. The economics of elective cesarean section. Clin Perinatol 2008; 35: 591-9.

  7. Habiba M et al. Cesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetrican’s attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006; 113: 647-56.

  8. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean- the maine experience. Birth 2005; 32: 203-6.

  9. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Visco AG. Elective primary caesarean delivery: attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 301-6.

  10. Ghetti C, Chan B, Gise JM. Physician’s responses to patient-requested cesarean delivery. Birth 2004; 31: 280-4.

  11. Gunnervik C et al. Attitudes towards cesarean section in a Nationwide sample of obstetricians and gynecologists. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 438-44.

  12. Nilstun T et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: Can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach? BMC Med Ethics 2008; 9: 11.

  13. Young D. New evidence on cesareans. Birth 2007; 34: 1-2.

  14. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007; 34: 53-64.

  15. Lagrew DC Jr, Morgan MA. Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 184-91.

  16. Poma PA. Effects of obstetrician characteristics on cesarean delivery rates. A community hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 1364-72.

  17. Porreco RP, Thorp JA. The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 369-74.

  18. Lagrew DC Jr, Adashek JA. Lowering the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: comparison of individual physician’s rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 1207-14.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com