Prevalence of cesarean section and its related factors among multiparous in Tehran province, Iran

authors:

avatar Saman Maroufizadeh , avatar Narges Bagheri Lankarani , avatar Arezoo Esmailzadeh , avatar Amir Almasi-Hashiani , avatar Payam Amini , avatar Mahdi Sepidarkish , avatar Rezao Samani , *

Koomesh: Vol.19, issue 4; 742-748
published online: December 02, 2017
article type: Research Article
received: January 01, 2017
accepted: July 02, 2017

how to cite: Maroufizadeh S, Bagheri Lankarani N, Esmailzadeh A, Almasi-Hashiani A, Amini P, et al. Prevalence of cesarean section and its related factors among multiparous in Tehran province, Iran. koomesh. 2017;19(4):e152920. 

Abstract

Introduction: Caesarean section (CS) rates have risen substantially worldwide over the past decades particularly in Latin America, the Caribbean and Iran. In this way, the aim of the study was to determine the rate of CS among multiparous, and indentifying the related factors. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 2189 multiparous who gave singleton birth in Tehran province, Iran from 6-21 July 2015. Data were collected by a researcher-made questionnaire through interview with mothers and review of their medical records. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factor associated with CS. Results: The CS rate was 71.8% in this study. In univariate analysis, higher maternal age, parents’ educational level, economic status, body mass index (BMI), parity, infant weight, baby’s head circumference, history of abortion, and use of assisted reproductive technology were associated with CS. Moreover, multivariate analysis has shown a significant relationship between CS and mother’s age, mother’s education, economic status, BMI, parity, infant weight and baby’s head circumference. Conclusion: The CS rate among multiparous in Tehran is substantially high. Therefore, there are essential requirements for providing immediate strategies (such as education and psychological interventions to increase women’s knowledge about the risks of CS as well as to change women’s attitude toward CS and improving the quality of natural delivery) to reduce CS rate. Furthermore, factors such as mother’s age, economic status, BMI, parity, infant weight and baby’s head circumference were related to CS.

References

  • 1.

    Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Rouse D, Spong C. Williams Obstetrics. New York. NY: McGraw-Hill. 2005.

  • 2.

    Geidam AD, Audu BM, Kawuwa BM, Obed JY. Rising trend and indications of caesarean section at the university of Maiduguri teaching hospital, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2009; 8: 127-132.

  • 3.

    Betrn AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Glmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One 2016; 11: e0148343.

  • 4.

    Betrn AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98-113.

  • 5.

    Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 331.

  • 6.

    Gibbons L, Belizn JM, Lauer JA, Betrn AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report 2010; 30: 1-31.

  • 7.

    Hger RM, Daltveit AK, Hofoss D, Nilsen ST, Kolaas T, ian P, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 428-434.

  • 8.

    Schuitemaker N, Roosmalen J, Dekker G, Dongen P, Geijn H, Gravenhorst JB. Maternal mortality after cesarean section in The Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 332-334.

  • 9.

    Hebert PR, Reed G, Entman SS, Mitchel Jr EF, Berg C, Griffin MR. Serious maternal morbidity after childbirth: prolonged hospital stays and readmissions. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 942-947.

  • 10.

    Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 477-482.

  • 11.

    Owen J, Andrews WW. Wound complications after cesarean sections. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1994; 37: 842-855.

  • 12.

    Murphy D, Stirrat G, Heron J, Team AS. The relationship between Caesarean section and subfertility in a population-based sample of 14 541 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1914-1917.

  • 13.

    Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1709-1714.

  • 14.

    Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 439-442.

  • 15.

    Miri Farahani L, Abbasi Shavazi MJ. Caesarean section change trends in iran and some demographic factors associated with them in the past three decades. J Fasa Univ Med Sci 2012; 2: 127-134. (Persian).

  • 16.

    Movahed M, Enayat H, Ghaffarinasab E, Alborzi S, Mozafari R. Related factors to choose cesarean rather than normal delivery among Shirazian pregnant women. J Fasa Univ Med Sci 2012; 2: 78-83. (Persian).

  • 17.

    Maroufizadeh S, Omani Samani R, Amini M, Sepidarkish M. Factors associated with preterm birth in Tehran province using multilevel logistic regression model. Koomesh 2016; 18: 236-241.

  • 18.

    Sepidarkish M, Almasi-Hashiani A, Maroufizadeh S, Vesali S, Pirjani R, Samani RO. Association between previous spontaneous abortion and pre-eclampsia during a subsequent pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 136: 83-86.

  • 19.

    Moore B. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 326: 787.

  • 20.

    Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman M. Births: Preliminary Data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016; 65: 1-15.

  • 21.

    Bahadori F, Hakimi S, Heidarzade M. The trend of caesarean delivery in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J 2013; 19: 67-70.

  • 22.

    Alimohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoodi M, Ramezanzadeh F. The survey of impact of pregnant women's request in selected cesarean. Payesh 2003; 2: 133-139. (Persian).

  • 23.

    Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmoudi M. Cesaren section in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Payesh 2002; 1: 5-10. (Persian).

  • 24.

    Mohammad Beygi A, Tabatabaei S, Mohammad Salehi N, Yazdani M. Factors influencing cesarean delivery method in Shiraz hospitals. Iran J Nurs 2009; 21: 37-45.

  • 25.

    Dehghani SL, Mehrolhasani N, Rastad H, Ebrahimi M, Jahromi MM. Factors influencing cesarean delivery in women referring to the women's pregnancy clinic in Bam, Iran. J Health Dev 2012; 1: 237-243. (Persian).

  • 26.

    Badiee S, Ravanshad Y, Azarfar A, Dastfan F, Babayi S, Mirzayi N. Survey of cesarean deliveries and their causes in hospitals affiliated to Mashhad university of medical sciences, Iran, 2011. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2013; 16: 10-17. (Persian).

  • 27.

    Khayyatian N, Nasiri S. Prevalence of cesarean section and its causes in governmental obstetric hospitals of kashan-2014. J Health Care 2016; 18: 28-36. (Persian).

  • 28.

    Mohammadpoorasl A, Rostami F, Torabi S. Prevalence of cesarean section and its demographic correlates in Tabriz. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci 2006; 28: 101-105. (Persian).

  • 29.

    Rezaei M, Zand Vakili F, Shahavi R, Roshani D, Farhadifar F. Modes of delivery and maternal outcomes in women referred to Sanandaj Hospitals in 2013. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 18: 1-9. (Persian).

  • 30.

    Naseh N, Khazaie T, Kianfar S, Dehghan R, Yoosefi S. Prevalence of Cesarean and its complications in women referring to Vali-e-Asr hospital. Mod Care J 2010; 7: 12-18.

  • 31.

    Maroufizadeh S, Bagheri-Lankarani N, Almasi-Hashiani A, Amini P, Esmaeilzadeh A, Navid B, et al. Prevalence of cesarean section and its related factors among primiparas in Tehran province, Iran, in 2015. J Isfahan Med Sch 2017; 35: 303-309. (Persian).

  • 32.

    Kenny LC, Lavender T, McNamee R, ONeill SM, Mills T, Khashan AS. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcome: evidence from a large contemporary cohort. PloS One 2013; 8: e56583.

  • 33.

    Roos N, Sahlin L, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Kieler H, Stephansson O. Maternal risk factors for postterm pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89: 1003-1010.

  • 34.

    Fabri R, Murta E. Socioeconomic factors and cesarean section rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 76: 87-88.

  • 35.

    Trojner-Bregar A, Blickstein I, Lucovnik M, Steblovnik L, Verdenik I, Tul N. The relationship between cesarean section rate in term singleton pregnancies, maternal weight, and weight gain during pregnancy. J Perinat Med 2016; 44: 393-396.

  • 36.

    Abu-Heija A, Rasheed R, El-Qaraan O. Effect of age and parity on primary caesarean section rates. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1997; 25: 38-39.

  • 37.

    Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, Team AS. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12 944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34: 353-367.

  • 38.

    Elvander C, Hgberg U, Ekeus C. The influence of fetal head circumference on labor outcome: a populationbased register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012; 91: 470-475.

  • 39.

    Poma PA. Correlation of birth weights with cesarean rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 65: 117-123.