Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Identifying factors associated with adolescents’ Intention for childbirth Cover

Identifying factors associated with adolescents’ Intention for childbirth

Open Access
|Feb 2023

References

  1. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP & Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ global health, 6(6), e005671, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
  2. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155): 1349-1357. https://doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5
  3. Linton A, Peterson MR, Williams TV. Effects of maternal characteristics on caesarean delivery rates among U.S. Department of Defense healthcare beneficiaries, 1996-2002. Birth. 2004;1:3-11. https://doi:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.0268
  4. Ionescu CA, Dimitriu M, Poenaru E, Bănacu M, Furău GO, Navolan D & Ples L. Defensive caesarean section: A reality and a recommended health care improvement for Romanian obstetrics. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2019;25(1), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13025
  5. Yang YT, Mello MM, Subramanian SV & Studdert DM. Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean section. Medical care. 2009;47(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818475de
  6. Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA & Ronsmans C. Obstetricians’ Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey. PloS one. 2016;11(3), e0152779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152779
  7. Antoniou E, Orovou E, Iliadou M, Sarella A, Palaska E, ­Sarantaki A, et al. Factors Associated with the Type of Caesarean Section in Greece and Their Correlation with International Guidelines. Acta informatica medica: AIM: journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina: casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH. 2021;29(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2021.29.38-44
  8. World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations: Non-clinical Interventions to Reduce Unnecessary Caesarean Sections. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
  9. Haines H, Rubertsson C, Pallant JF & Hildingsson I. Womens’ attitudes and beliefs of childbirth and association with birth preference: a comparison of a Swedish and an Australian sample in mid-pregnancy. Midwifery. 2012;28(6), e850–e856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2011.09.011
  10. Salomonsson B, Gullberg MT, Alehagen S & Wijma K. Self-efficacy beliefs and fear of childbirth in nulliparous women. Journal of psychosomatic obstetrics and gynaecology. 2013;34(3), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2013.824418
  11. Wiklund I, Edman G & Andolf E. Caesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2007;86(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340701217913
  12. Hall WA, Stoll K, Hutton EK & Brown H. A prospective study of effects of psychological factors and sleep on obstetric interventions, mode of birth, and neonatal outcomes among low-risk British Columbian women. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2012;12, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-12-78
  13. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020;2(4). https://doi:org/10.1002/hbe2.195
  14. Varnakioti D, Gourounti K, Sarantaki A, Tzavara C, Lykeridou A. The development and the psychometric evaluation of the Adolescents Intentions towards the Birth Options Scale in Greek. European Journal of Midwifery. 2020;6 (March), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/145968
  15. McKay A, & Holowaty P. Sexual health education: a study of adolescents’ opinions, self-perceived needs, and current and preferred sources of information. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 1997;6(1), 29-38.
  16. McKay A. Sexual health education in the schools: Questions and answers. The Canadian journal of human sexuality. 2004;13(3):129-141
  17. Stoll K, Fairbrother N, Carty E, Jordan N, Miceli C, Vostrcil Y & Willihnganz L. “It’s all the rage these days”: University students’ attitudes toward vaginal and caesarean birth. Birth (Berkeley, Calif.). 2009;36(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00310.x
  18. Klein MC, Kaczorowski J, Hearps S, Tomkinson J, Baradaran N, Hall WA, et al. (2011). Birth technology and maternal roles in birth: knowledge and attitudes of canadian women approaching childbirth for the first time. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada: Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada: JOGC. 2009;33(6), 598–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34908-8
  19. Handan O, Gulay R. University students’ attitudes toward natural birth. J. Gynecol. Womens Health. 2017;7(4). https://doi:10.19080/JGWH.2017.07.555717
  20. Antić LZ, Radoš SN, Jokić-Begić N. Are non-pregnant women afraid of childbirth? Prevalence and predictors of fear of childbirth in students. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019;40(3):226231. https://doi:10.1080/0167482X.2018.1470162
  21. Stoll KH, Downe S, Edmonds J, Gross MM, Malott A, McAra-Couper J et al. A Survey of University Students’ Preferences for Midwifery Care and Community Birth Options in 8 High-Income Countries. Journal of midwifery & women’s health. 2020;65(1), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13069
  22. Thomson G, Stoll K, Downe S & Hall WA. Negative impressions of childbirth in a North-West England student population. Journal of psychosomatic obstetrics and gynaecology. 2017;38(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2016.1216960
  23. Tilden EL, Caughey AB, Lee CS & Emeis C. The Effect of Childbirth Self-Efficacy on Perinatal Outcomes. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing: JOGNN. 2016;45(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2016.06.003
  24. Kingdon C, Downe S, Betran AP. Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: Systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One. 2018;13(9): e0203274. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203274 https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A30023891/AONE?u=anon~86867a4b&sid=googleScholar&xid=aa0cda7c
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34763/jmotherandchild.20222601.d-22-00022 | Journal eISSN: 2719-535X | Journal ISSN: 2719-6488
Language: English
Page range: 93 - 103
Submitted on: May 19, 2022
|
Accepted on: Dec 2, 2022
|
Published on: Feb 22, 2023
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2023 Dimitra Varnakioti, Antigoni Sarantaki, Kleanthi Gourounti, Aikaterini Lykeridou, published by Institute of Mother and Child
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.