Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2019

22.11.2018 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-medical professional mothers-to-be and the impact of additional information on their decision: an online questionnaire cohort study

verfasst von: Julia Bihler, Ralf Tunn, Christl Reisenauer, Giselle E. Kolenic, Jan Pauluschke-Froehlich, Philipp Wagner, Harald Abele, Katharina K. Rall, Gert Naumann, Stephanie Wallwiener, Markus Wallwiener, Christof Sohn, Sara Y. Brucker, Markus Huebner

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

It was the aim to evaluate the personal preference of mode of delivery and to analyze differences between medical professionals and non-medical professionals. Interest in participating in a risk stratification system was evaluated. We hypothesized that gaining information about risk stratification provided in the survey could potentially change participants’ decision regarding the preferred mode of delivery; therefore, subjects were asked twice (before and after providing information).

Methods

Five cohorts [four professionals (MP) including participants of the German Urogynecology Congress 2017, employees of two major university hospitals in Germany, and members of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and one non-professional group (NP) including pregnant women] were invited online to participate in this survey.

Results

Vaginal delivery was the preferred mode of delivery in both groups (MP 90.4% vs. NP 88.8%; p = 0.429). MP are more likely to opt for CS due to concerns regarding pelvic floor disorders (MP 56.6% vs. NP 9.1%; p < 0.001). Likewise, parity and prior experienced CS (pCS) had a significant impact on the decision towards vaginal delivery (parity MP OR 7.5 95% CI 4.6–12.3, NP OR 9.3 95% CI 1.9–44.2; (pCS) MP OR 0.12 95% CI 0.07–0.19, NP OR 0.05 95% CI 0.01–0.25). There is great interest in participating in risk stratification systems in the majority of participants (68.9%).

Conclusions

MP and NP prefer vaginal birth for themselves or their partners. Within the group that opted for CS, MP were significantly more often concerned about pelvic floor disorders. Future prevention aspects might include education about pelvic floor disorders.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Bihler J, Tunn R, Reisenauer C, Pauluschke-Frohlich J, Wagner P, Abele H, Rall KK, Naumann G, Wallwiener M, Brucker SY, Hubner M (2017) Personal preference of mode of delivery. What do urogynaecologists choose? Preliminary results of the DECISION study. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 77(11):1182–1188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bihler J, Tunn R, Reisenauer C, Pauluschke-Frohlich J, Wagner P, Abele H, Rall KK, Naumann G, Wallwiener M, Brucker SY, Hubner M (2017) Personal preference of mode of delivery. What do urogynaecologists choose? Preliminary results of the DECISION study. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 77(11):1182–1188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1996) Obstetricians’ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 347(9000):544CrossRefPubMed Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1996) Obstetricians’ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 347(9000):544CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Bergholt T, Ostberg B, Legarth J, Weber T (2004) Danish obstetricians’ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(3):262–266CrossRefPubMed Bergholt T, Ostberg B, Legarth J, Weber T (2004) Danish obstetricians’ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(3):262–266CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Rivo JC, Amyx M, Pingray V, Casale RA, Fiorillo AE, Krupitzki HB, Malamud JD, Mendilaharzu M, Medina ML, Del Pino AB, Ribola L, Schvartzman JA, Tartalo GM, Trasmonte M, Varela S, Althabe F, Belizan JM, Feasibility of ‘Mode of Delivery Trial’ Study G (2018) Obstetrical providers’ preferred mode of delivery and attitude towards non-medically indicated caesarean sections: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15122 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rivo JC, Amyx M, Pingray V, Casale RA, Fiorillo AE, Krupitzki HB, Malamud JD, Mendilaharzu M, Medina ML, Del Pino AB, Ribola L, Schvartzman JA, Tartalo GM, Trasmonte M, Varela S, Althabe F, Belizan JM, Feasibility of ‘Mode of Delivery Trial’ Study G (2018) Obstetrical providers’ preferred mode of delivery and attitude towards non-medically indicated caesarean sections: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1471-0528.​15122 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(5):358–366CrossRefPubMed Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA (2001) Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(5):358–366CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Beilecke K, Tunn R (2017) Ein neues Konzept in der postpartalen Pessartherapie. gynäkologie + geburtshilfe 22:30–32 Beilecke K, Tunn R (2017) Ein neues Konzept in der postpartalen Pessartherapie. gynäkologie + geburtshilfe 22:30–32
Metadaten
Titel
The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-medical professional mothers-to-be and the impact of additional information on their decision: an online questionnaire cohort study
verfasst von
Julia Bihler
Ralf Tunn
Christl Reisenauer
Giselle E. Kolenic
Jan Pauluschke-Froehlich
Philipp Wagner
Harald Abele
Katharina K. Rall
Gert Naumann
Stephanie Wallwiener
Markus Wallwiener
Christof Sohn
Sara Y. Brucker
Markus Huebner
Publikationsdatum
22.11.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4970-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.