Elective primary cesarean delivery: Attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists

被引:41
作者
Wu, JM [1 ]
Hundley, MF [1 ]
Visco, AG [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.AOG.0000151110.05801.c0
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To compare the attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists in the United States regarding elective primary cesarean delivery. METHODS: A Web-based questionnaire was sent by e-mail to members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) who reside in the United States. The first e-mail was sent in October 2003, and 2 additional e-mails were sent to nonresponders over the next month. The survey included questions about demographics, practice patterns, and opinions about different clinical scenarios regarding elective primary cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Of 1,479 surveys sent to functioning e-mail addresses, 782 were completed (52.9% response rate). American Urogynecologic Society and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine members were similar in response rate (53.0% versus 52.8%, respectively). Overall, 65.4% of physicians would perform an elective cesarean delivery, but AUGS members were significantly more likely to agree to perform an elective cesarean than SMFM members (80.4% versus 55.4%, respectively, P < .001). In a logistic regression model that included age, sex, having no children, years in practice, and subspecialty (urogynecology or maternal-fetal medicine), AUGS members were 3.4 times (95% confidence interval 2.3-4.9, P < .001) more likely to agree to perform an elective cesarean. CONCLUSION: Among respondents, a majority of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists surveyed would perform an elective primary cesarean delivery. Urogynecologists were significantly more likely to support elective cesareans.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 306
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   PELVIC FLOOR DAMAGE AND CHILDBIRTH - A NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL STUDY [J].
ALLEN, RE ;
HOSKER, GL ;
SMITH, ARB ;
WARRELL, DW .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1990, 97 (09) :770-779
[2]   Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice [J].
AlMufti, R ;
McCarthy, A ;
Fisk, NM .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 1997, 73 (01) :1-4
[3]   Prevalence of urinary incontinence and associated brisk factors in a cohort of nuns [J].
Buchsbaum, GM ;
Chin, M ;
Glantz, C ;
Guzick, D .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 100 (02) :226-229
[4]   Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion [J].
Cotzias, CS ;
Paterson-Brown, S ;
Fisk, NM .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2001, 97 (01) :15-16
[5]   Once a pregnancy, always a cesarean? Rationale and feasibility of a randomized controlled trial [J].
Ecker, JL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2004, 190 (02) :314-318
[6]   The risk of urinary incontinence of parous women who delivered only by cesarean section [J].
Faúndes, A ;
Guarisi, T ;
Pinto-Neto, AM .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2001, 72 (01) :41-46
[7]   Effect of second vaginal delivery on anorectal physiology and faecal continence: a prospective study [J].
Fynes, M ;
Donnelly, V ;
Behan, M ;
O'Connell, PR ;
O'Herlihy, C .
LANCET, 1999, 354 (9183) :983-986
[8]   The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity [J].
Gilliam, M ;
Rosenberg, D ;
Davis, F .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (06) :976-980
[9]   Obstetricians' opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery [J].
Gonen, R ;
Tamir, A ;
Degani, S .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (04) :577-580
[10]  
Haas D M, 2002, J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, V11, P196