ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Attitudes, Perceptions and Determinants of Non-Medically Indicated Caesarean Section Preference Among Pregnant Women in Thailand: A Three-Phase Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-medically indicated caesarean section (CS) is a growing contributor to rising CS rates globally and in Thailand, influenced by maternal preference, socio-cultural factors and clinical decision-making. Understanding women's perspectives is essential to guide counselling strategies and inform policy targeted at reducing unnecessary CS. Objective: To explore pregnant women's attitudes, perceptions and determinants of preference for non-medically indicated CS and identify factors associated with CS preference. Methods: This prospective, descriptive, three-phase mixed-methods study was conducted from May 1 to July 30, 2024. The study was conducted at an antenatal clinic. The study comprised three phases: in-depth interviews with 40 pregnant women, questionnaire development and validation, and a survey of 400 participants. Descriptive statistics summarised had demographic data, while univariable chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regression analysed factors associated with non-medically indicated CSs. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported, with statistical significance set at Results: Among the 400 women surveyed, 75% preferred vaginal delivery as a more natural and less risky option. However, 60% 60% reported they would still agree to a CS if recommended by a doctor, indicating high reliance on physician guidance even in situations without clear medical indication. Key factors affecting delivery preferences included prior caesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.5‒4.0) and maternal age over 35 years (adjusted odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.1‒2.9). Comprehensive counselling was deemed essential by 80% of participants, who reported greater confidence in choosing vaginal delivery after thorough discussions of risks and benefits. Auspicious timing influenced 39.5%, while 37.3% were swayed by pain perception. Higher education levels, assisted conception methods and concerns about safety, such as blood loss, also shaped CS preferences. Conclusion: Pregnant women in Thailand generally prefer vaginal birth but are highly influenced by physician recommendations. Strengthening counselling, addressing misconceptions and incorporating shared decision-making into routine antenatal care may reduce non-indicated CS demand. Findings support future development of counselling frameworks and policy interventions to promote safe, evidence-based delivery choices. Thai Clinical Trials Registry Reference: TCTR 20230913007: Date of registration 13 September 2023.
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.