Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30349203›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Women's cesarean section preferences and influencing factors in relation to China's two-child policy: a cross-sectional study.

Huijuan Liang, Yancun Fan, Nan Zhang, Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong, Qingchun Wang, Jing Gong, Hutcha Sriplung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Huijuan LiangResearch Institute for Health Policy of Inner Mongolia, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Yancun FanResearch Institute for Health Policy of Inner Mongolia, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Nan ZhangResearch Institute for Health Policy of Inner Mongolia, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Virasakdi ChongsuvivatwongEpidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, hutcha.s@psu.ac.th.
Qingchun WangDepartment of Medical Education, Hohhot First Hospital, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Jing GongDepartment of Medical Education, Hohhot First Hospital, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Hutcha SriplungEpidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, hutcha.s@psu.ac.th.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study explored women's preference for cesarean section (CS) and the preference for cesarean sections' influencing factors, particularly nonmedical factors.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in four tertiary hospitals in Hohhot. We recruited 1,169 pregnant women at ≥ 28 gestational weeks and classified subjects into three groups by delivery mode preference: vaginal birth (VB), CS, and "no clear preference". We identified the influencing factors of women's choices by multinomial logistic regression. The adjusted relative-risk ratios (aRRRs) for the factors affecting the preference for CS and "no clear preference" categories and their 95% CIs were computed, using the preference for VB as the reference group.

resultsVB was preferred by 80.3% of the subjects, 8.8% preferred CS, and 10.9% had not decided yet. In the multinomial logistic regression, pregnant women intending to have more than one child were less likely to prefer CS (aRRR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61); choosing a lucky day for baby birth was the strongest factor for CS preference (aRRR: 12.36; 95% CI: 6.62-23.08), and other factors for CS preference were being aged 40 years and above (aRRR: 4.21; 95% CI: 1.43-12.40), being ethnic minority (aRRR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.41), feeling difficulty in getting pregnant (aRRR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.20, 4.13), and having husband's preference for CS (aRRR: 7.62; 95% CI: 4.00-14.54). The top reasons for preferring CS were the belief that CS was safer (51.5%), associated with less pain (40.8%), and better for baby's and woman's health (24.3% and 22.3%, respectively).

conclusionLess than one-tenth of the study subjects preferred CS. The cultural beliefs had the strongest influence on the decision of delivery mode. Those intending to have two or more children following the two-child policy were less likely to choose CS.

Indexed as

fertility intentionmode of deliverypregnant womenvaginal birth

Identifiers

PMID30349203
PMCPMC6188957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.