IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence of and reasons for women’s, family members’, and health professionals’ preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Qian Long
  • Carol Kingdon
  • Fan Yang
  • Michael Dominic Renecle
  • Shayesteh Jahanfar
  • Meghan A Bohren
  • Ana Pilar Betran

Abstract

Background: China has witnessed a rapid increase of cesarean section (CS) rates in recent years. Several non-clinical factors have been cited as contributing to this trend including maternal request and perceived convenience. We aimed to assess preferences for mode of delivery and reasons for preferences for CS in China to inform the development of future interventions to mitigate unnecessary CSs, which are those performed in the absence of medical indications. Methods and findings: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and included longitudinal, cross-sectional, and qualitative studies in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that investigated preferences for mode of delivery among women and family members and health professionals, and the reasons underlying such preferences. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health Library, and one Chinese database (CNKI) using a combination of the key terms ‘caesarean section’, ‘preference’, ‘choice’, ‘knowledge’, ‘attitude’, ‘culture’, ‘non-clinical factors’, and ‘health professionals-patient relations’ between 1990 and 2018 without language restriction. Meta-analysis of quantitative studies and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were applied. We included 66 studies in this analysis: 47 quantitative and 19 qualitative. For the index pregnancy, the pooled proportions of preference for CS reported by women in longitudinal studies were 14% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 12%–17%) and 21% in late pregnancy (95% CI 15%–26%). In cross-sectional studies, the proportions were 17% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 14%–20%), 22% in late pregnancy (95% CI 18%–25%), and 30% postpartum (95% CI 19%–40%). Women’s preferences for CS were found to rise as pregnancy progressed (preference change across longitudinal studies: mean difference 7%, 95% CI 1%–13%). One longitudinal study reported that the preference for CS among women’s partners increased from 8% in late pregnancy to 17% in the immediate postpartum period. In addition, 18 quantitative studies revealed that some pregnant women, ranging from 4% to 34%, did not have a straightforward preference for a mode of delivery, even in late pregnancy. The qualitative meta-synthesis found that women’s perceptions of CS as preferable were based on prioritising the baby’s and woman’s health and appeared to intensify through interactions with the health system. Women valued the convenience of bypassing labour because of fear of pain, antagonistic relations with providers, and beliefs of deteriorating quality of care during labour and vaginal birth, fostering the feeling that CS was the safest option. Health professionals’ preference for CS was influenced by financial drivers and malpractice fears. This review has some limitations, including high heterogeneity (despite subgroup and sensitivity analysis) in the quantitative analysis, and the potential for over-reporting of women’s preferences for CS in the qualitative synthesis (due to some included studies only including women who requested CS). Conclusions: Despite a minority of women expressing a preference for CS, individual, health system, and socio-cultural factors converge, contributing to a high CS rate in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In order to reduce unnecessary CSs, interventions need to address all these non-clinical factors and concerns. Systematic review registry: Prospero CRD42016036596. In a systematic review of longitudinal, cross-sectional and qualitative studies, Qian Long and colleagues provide insight into the rates of medically non-indicated caesarean section in China.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Qian Long & Carol Kingdon & Fan Yang & Michael Dominic Renecle & Shayesteh Jahanfar & Meghan A Bohren & Ana Pilar Betran, 2018. "Prevalence of and reasons for women’s, family members’, and health professionals’ preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002672
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doan Thi Thuy Duong & Colin Binns & Andy Lee & Yun Zhao & Ngoc Minh Pham & Dinh Thi Phuong Hoa & Bui Thi Thu Ha, 2022. "Intention to Exclusively Breastfeed Is Associated with Lower Rates of Cesarean Section for Nonmedical Reasons in a Cohort of Mothers in Vietnam," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.