ArticleJournal of reproduction & infertility
Intention for Cesarean Section Versus Vaginal Delivery Among Pregnant Women in Isfahan: Correlates and Determinants.
Article in Journal of reproduction & infertility. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preference and determinants of delivery mode in pregnant women with one cesarean scar: a cross-sectional study in two urban Ugandan public hospitals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Can a theory-based intervention lead primiparous women to decide to have a normal vaginal delivery? A randomized controlled trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Optimizing caesarean section use and feasibility of implementing the Robson classification system: Perspectives of healthcare providers and policymakers.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Using Social Marketing to Reduce Intention of Cesarean Section in Iranian Women.Journal of pregnancy · 2021Article
- A Systematic Evaluation of Hospital Performance of Childbirth Delivery Modes and Associated Factors in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIran has the second highest rate of cesarean section in the world. the corresponding rate in the third metropolitan city of Iran, Isfahan, is even higher. This paper aimed to assess correlates and determinants of intention for cesarean section versus normal vaginal delivery (NVD) among pregnant women in Isfahan.
methodsA study was conducted among 400 pregnant women aged 18-38 years, with gestational age of 24-40 weeks who attended labor clinics of nine hospitals in Isfahan during June and July 2014. Probability proportional to size was used to estimate the number of cases required to be selected for each hospital. T-test, chi-square and logistic regression analysis were employed to analyze the data.
resultsMean age of women was 26.6±4.4 years. Multivariate analysis identified selected factors as determinants of intention for CS. These were "the role of physician" (OR=1.33, p<0.001), "subjective norms" (OR=1.19, p<0.01) and "body Image" (OR= 1.46, p<0.001) upon control of education, income and intended fertility (number of children intended). Moreover, path analysis showed that "attitude towards cesarean section" and "individualism" influence CS decision through subjective norm.
conclusionChoosing cesarean section voluntarily is a multifaceted decision which is shaped by various factors; hence, comprehensive interventions are suggested to discourage voluntary cesarean section. These interventions need to encompass changes in physicians' role, social norms, body image and correcting misperceptions among women towards CS and NVD during prenatal courses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27921002PMC5124342W2554157845What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.