LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Behague, DP; Victora, CG; Barros, FC (2002)
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate why some women prefer caesarean sections and how decisions to medicalise birthing are influenced by patients, doctors, and the sociomedical environment. DESIGN: Population based birth cohort study, using ethnographic and epidemiological methods. SETTING: Epidemiological study: women living in the urban area of Pelotas, Brazil who gave birth in hospital during the study. Ethnographic study: subsample of 80 women selected at random from the birth cohort. Nineteen medical staff were interviewed. PARTICIPANTS: 5304 women who gave birth in any of the city's hospitals in 1993. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Birth by caesarean section or vaginal delivery. RESULTS: In both samples women from families with higher incomes and higher levels of education had caesarean sections more often than other women. Many lower to middle class women sought caesarean sections to avoid what they considered poor quality care and medical neglect, resulting from social prejudice. These women used medicalised prenatal and birthing health care to increase their chance of acquiring a caesarean section, particularly if they had social power in the home. Both social power and women's behaviour towards seeking medicalised health care remained significantly associated with type of birth after controlling for family income and maternal education. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of substandard care is behind many poor women's preferences for a caesarean section. Variables pertaining to women's role in the process of redefining and negotiating medical risks were much stronger correlates of caesarean section rates than income or education. The unequal distribution of medical technology has altered concepts of good and normal birthing. Arguments supporting interventionist birthing for all on the basis of equal access to health care must be reviewed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 Belizan J, Althabe F, Barros F, Alezander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397­ 402.
    • 2 Barros F, Victora C, Morris S. Caesarean sections in Brazil. Lancet 1996;347:839.
    • 3 World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436­7.
    • 4 Ash A, Okah D. What is the right number of caesarean sections? Lancet 1997;349:1557.
    • 5 Al­Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk N. Obstetricians' personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 1996;347:544.
    • 6 Geary M, Wilshin J, Persaud M, Hindmarch P, Rodeck C. Do doctors have an increased rate of caesarean section? Lancet 1998;351:1117.
    • 7 Murray S, Pradenas F. Health sector reform and rise of caesarean birth in Chile. Lancet 1997;349:64.
    • 8 Haines A. Health care in Brazil. BMJ 1993;306:503­6.
    • 9 De Mello e Souza C. C­sections as ideal births: The cultural construction of beneficience and patients' rights in Brazil. Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics 1994;3:358­66.
    • 10 Lilford R, Van Coerverden deGroot H, Moore P, Gingham P. The relative risks of caesarean section (intrapartum and elective) and vaginal delivery: a detailed analysis to exclude the effects of medical disorders and other acute preexisting physiological disturbances. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:883­92.
    • 11 Hemminki E, Merilainen J. Long­term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;174:1569­74.
    • 12 Thurmond A, Harvey W, Smith S. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999;18:13­6, 17­8.
    • 13 Editorial. What is the right number of caesarean sections? Lancet 1997;349(March 22):815.
    • 14 Peterson­Brown S. Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? BMJ 1998;317:462­3.
    • 15 Barros F, Victora C, Vaughan J, Capellari M. Perinatal risk in third world cities. World Health Forum 1985;6:322­4.
    • 16 Cosminsky S. Childbirth and change: a Guatemalan study. In: MacCormack CP, ed. Ethnography of fertility and birth. London: Academic Press, 1982:205­29.
    • 17 MacCormack C, ed. Ethnography of fertility and birth. London: Academic Press, 1982.
    • 18 Kaufert P, O'Neil J. Analysis of a dialogue on risks in childbirth: clinicians, epidemiologists, and Inuit women. In: S Lindenbaum ML, ed. Knowledge, power and practice: the anthropology of medicine and everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993:32­54.
    • 19 Victora C, Barros F, Vaughan J. Epidemiologia de la desigualdad [Epidemiology of inequality]. Washington DC: Pan­American Health Organization, 1992.
    • 20 Davis­Floyd R. The technocratic body: American childbirth as cultural expression. Soc Sci Med 1993;38:1125­40.
    • 21 LoCicero A. Explaining excessive rate of cesareans and other childbirth interventions: contributions from contemporary theories of gender and psychosocial development. Soc Sci Med 1993;37:1261­9.
    • 22 McClain C. Patient decision making: the case of delivery method after a previous cesarean section. Cult Med Psychiatry 1987;11:495­508.
    • 23 Sargent C, Stark N. Surgical birth: interpretations of cesarean delivery among private hospital patients and nursing staff. Soc Sci Med 1987;25:1269­76.
    • 24 Klaus M, Kennell J, Robertson S, Rosa R. Effects of social support during parturition on maternal and infant morbidity. BMJ 1986;293:585­7.
    • 25 Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
    • 26 Bewley S. Obstetricians' views on caesarean section versus vaginal birth. Lancet 1996;347:1189.
    • (Accepted 7 November 2001)
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article