ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Preference and determinants of delivery mode in pregnant women with one cesarean scar: a cross-sectional study in two urban Ugandan public hospitals.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preference of mode of delivery and associated factors among mothers in East Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the gendered dynamics of cesarean section: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Impact of cesarean section scar on decision regret and body image: a cross-sectional study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of cesarean sections among women with a previous scar has continued to increase in Uganda. Such women can opt for a trial of labor, and the success rate for spontaneous vaginal delivery is 60-80%. This study assessed the preference and determinants of delivery mode among pregnant women with one cesarean scar.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among pregnant women who were attending antenatal care in two public hospitals in Uganda from 1st September to 1st October 2022. Kish Lisle formula was used to get a total sample of 169 pregnant women with one previous scar and nonrecurring indication for cesarean section. These were consecutively recruited into the study, and a modified Poisson regression was performed to identify factors associated with the preferred mode of delivery.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 28 (4.88) years. Out of 169 women, the majority 137 (81%) preferred a trial of labor. Mothers who preferred to have more than four children were more likely to opt for a trial of labor (aPVR = 0.27, CI;1.01-1.49, p = 0.009). Mothers who were concerned about the cost associated with cesarean section were more likely to choose a trial of labor (aPVR = 1.2, CI;1.01-1.49, p = 0.03), and mothers who perceived that a cesarean section affects body image (aPVR = 3.06, CI;1.39-6.75, p = 0.03) and being employed (aPVR = 0.84, CI:0.74-0.96, p = 0.01) were more likely to prefer a cesarean section.
conclusionTrial of labor after cesarean remains the preferred mode of delivery among women. The desire to have more children and concern about medical expenses increased the likelihood of having a vaginal birth preference. Women with body image concerns and being employed increased the likelihood of a cesarean section preference. It is recommended to consider a trial of labor after cesarean section for all women with nonrecurring indications for cesarean section. Empowering women through health education on the risks and benefits of cesarean section helps them make an informed choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.