Gap between maternal preferences and actual mode of delivery in Agra District of Uttar Pradesh: observational study

Arti Verma; Pooja Verma; Preeti Gupta; Prathyusha Lingareddy

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263184

Authors

Arti Verma Department of Community Medicine, Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India
Pooja Verma Department of Emergency Medicine, Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2095-0738
Preeti Gupta Department of Physiology, Autonomus Medical College Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, India https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4568-6084
Prathyusha Lingareddy Department of Community Medicine, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-1916

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263184

Keywords:

Cesarean section, Institutional delivery, Maternal preference, Mode of delivery

Abstract

Background: The raising trend of cesarean section deliveries worldwide is a matter of concern. Most of the women prefer normal institutional normal vaginal delivery but their actual mode of delivery depends on their obstetric and healthcare factors. Objective was to assess the gap between preference and practice regarding the delivery mode and to identify factors associated with delivery against maternal preference among women in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

Methods: A community based cross sectional study conducted among women who had delivered a live baby within the previous one year in selected rural and peri-urban areas of Agra district. A multistage stage random sampling, 300 women were interviewed with pre tested and structured questionnaire, 272 institutional deliveries were included. Data on socio-demographic characteristics, obstetric history, antenatal care and preference were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistic, chi- square test fisher’s exact test and logistic regression analysis using JAMOVI software.

Results: Out of 272 deliveries, 223 (82.0%) were normal vaginal and 49 (18.0%) were cesarean section. Most women (97.4%) preferred normal delivery. Maternal education, husband’s education, parity, previous mode delivery and type of health facility were significantly associated. Logistic regression identified place of delivery (AOR=2.93, p=0.004) and previous mode delivery (AOR=7.69, p<0.001) as significant predictors.

Conclusions: A considerable gap exists between preference and practice. Institutional factors and previous obstetric history influence delivery outcomes. Strengthening antenatal counselling and promoting evidence-based obstetric practices, may help reduce unnecessary cesarean sections.

References

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019-21: India Report. Mumbai: IIPS; 2021. Available at: http://rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-5Reports/NFHS-5_INDIA_REPORT.pdf. Accessed on 9 June 2014.

World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Cesarean Section Rates. Geneva: WHO; 2015. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf. Accessed on 9 June 2014.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India Report. Mumbai: IIPS; 2017. Available at: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR339/FR339.pdf. Accessed on 9 June 2014.

Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BWC. High cesarean section rates in a tertiary care hospital in South India. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2003;53(6):588-90.

Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJ, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in cesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8.

Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of cesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):57.

Mishra US, Mishra V. Determinants of cesarean section in India. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(2):188-99.

Thaddeus S, Maine D. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(8):1091-110.

Singh A, Trivedi A. Socioeconomic determinants of maternal health care utilization in India. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120820.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Janani Suraksha Yojana: Guidelines for Implementation. New Delhi: Government of India; 2005.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Health Mission: Framework for Implementation. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.

Saoji A, Nimbalkar S, Bansal R. Preferences of pregnant women regarding mode of delivery and factors influencing it. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2011.

Neuman M, Alcock G, Azad K, Kuddus A. Prevalence and determinants of cesarean section in private and public health facilities in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3:e000671.

D’Souza R, Arulkumaran S. To ‘C’ or not to ‘C’? Cesarean delivery upon maternal request. BJOG. 2013;120(11):1273-6.

Goli S, Rammohan A. Rising cesarean section rates in India: the role of the private sector. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112713.

Kambo I, Bedi N, Dhillon BS. A critical appraisal of cesarean section rates in India. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2002;52(4):82-6.

Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(6):1267-78.

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One. 2016 F;11(2):e0148343.

Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI). Guidelines on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Mumbai: FOGSI; 2020.

Padmadas SS, Kumar S, Nair SB. High cesarean rates in India: evidence from population studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:25.

Singh PK, Rai RK, Alagarajan M, Singh L. Determinants of maternity care services utilisation among women in India. PLoS One. 2012;7:e31666.

Kumar C, Dhillon P. Antenatal care and maternal health outcomes in India. J Public Health. 2020;42(3):e327-35.

Garber A, Klein E, Bruce S, Sankoh S, Mohideen P. Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2006;8(2):156-63.

O’Brien C. Drug addiction and drug abuse. In: Brunton LB, Lazo JS, Parker KL, eds. Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 11th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005:607-29.

National Cancer Institute. Fact sheet: targeted therapies to treat cancer. 2012. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/targeted#q1. Accessed on 9 June 2014.