The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choice and birth method: mixed‐method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request
Abstract
Objective To explore whether women view decision‐making surrounding vaginal or caesarean birth as their choice. Design Longitudinal cohort study utilising quantitative (questionnaire, routinely collected data) and qualitative (in‐depth interviews) methods simultaneously. Setting A large hospital providing National Health Service maternity care in the UK. Sample Four‐hundred and fifty‐four primigravid women. Methods Women completed up to three questionnaires between their antenatal booking appointment and delivery. Amongst these women, 153 were interviewed at least once during pregnancy (between 24 and 36 weeks) and/or after 12 moths after birth. Data were also obtained from women’s hospital delivery records. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed (survey and delivery data). Interview data were analysed using a seven‐stage sequential form of qualitative analysis. Results Whilst many women supported the principle of choice, they identified how, in practice their autonomy was limited by individual circumstance and available care provision. All women felt that concerns about their baby’s or their own health should take precedence over personal preference. Moreover, expressing a preference for either vaginal or caesarean birth was inherently problematic as choice until the time of delivery was neither static nor final. Women did not have autonomous choice over their actual birth method, but neither did they necessarily want it. Conclusions The results of this large exploratory study suggest that choice may not be the best concept through which to approach the current arrangements for birth in the UK. Moreover, they challenge the notion of choice that currently prevails in international debates about caesarean delivery for maternal request.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Additionally, cultural beliefs, values and traditions can substantially influence attitudes towards delivery methods and subsequent decision-making.25”
From Determinants of the choice of delivery mode in pregnant women: a convergent parallel mixed-methods study protocol (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative Data Analysis
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994) · Cited by 3,222
Simkin, P. (1992) · Birth · doi:10.1111/j.1523-536x.1992.tb00382.x · Cited by 357
Elective Cesarean Section and Decision Making: A Critical Review of the Literature
McCourt, C., Weaver, J. J., Statham, H., Beake, S., Gamble, J. A., & Creedy, D. K. (2007) · Birth · doi:10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00147.x · Cited by 319
Elective Primary Cesarean Delivery
MINKOFF, H. L., & Chervenak, F. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsb022734 · Cited by 304
Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study
Potter, J. E., Berquó, E., Perpétuo, I. H. O., Leal, O. F., Hopkins, K., Souza, M. R., & Formiga, M. C. D. C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1155 · Cited by 300
Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice
Al‐Mufti, R., McCarthy, A., & Fisk, N. M. (1997) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/s0301-2115(96)02692-9 · Cited by 241
Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries
Habiba, M. A., Kaminski, M., Frè, M. D., Maršál, K., Bleker, O. P., Librero, J., Grandjean, H., Gratia, P., Guaschino, S., Heyl, W., et al. (2006) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00933.x · Cited by 222
Moffat, M., Bell, J. S., Porter, M., Lawton, S., Hundley, V. A., Danielian, P., & Bhattacharya, S. (2006) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01154.x · Cited by 174
Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request
Bettes, B. A., Coleman‐Cowger, V. H., Zinberg, S., Spong, C. Y., Portnoy, B., DeVoto, E., & Schulkin, J. A. (2007) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000249608.11864.b6 · Cited by 162
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- National Institutes of Health, 2006, State‐of‐the‐Science‐Conference: cesarean delivery on maternal request: final statement, Obstet Gynecol, 107, 1386
- Thomas J, 2001, The National Sentinal Caesarean Section Audit Report
- Childbirth Connection, 2006, Listening to Mothers II
- Declercq G, 2006, Boston Globe
- Department of Health, 2005, Maternity Statistics, England: 2003–04
- Department of Health, 1993, Changing Childbirth: Part 1: Report of the Expert Maternity Group
- National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health, 2004, Caesarean Section Clinical Guideline 2004
- Maddocks J, 2002, Merseyside and Cheshire Perinatal Annual Report (Including the Isle of Man)
- Chesler M, 1987, Professionals’ Views of the “Dangers” of Self‐Help Groups (CRSO Paper 345)
- BakerLWomen’s views towards participating in research in a maternity setting: A longitudinal cohort study.MPhil Thesis University of Liverpool Liverpool 2007.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term
Lavender, T., Hofmeyr, G. J., Neilson, J. P., Kingdon, C., & Gyte, G. M. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004660.pub3 · Cited by 78
Self-citationCross-cultural comparison of levels of childbirth-related fear in an Australian and Swedish sample
Haines, H., Pallant, J. F., Karlström, A., & Hildingsson, I. (2011) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2010.05.004 · Cited by 265
Macfarlane, A., Blondel, B., Hindori‐Mohangoo, A. D., Cuttini, M., Nijhuis, J. G., Novak, Ž., Ólafsdóttir, H. S., & Zeitlin, J. A. (2015) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13284 · Cited by 261
The influence of women’s fear, attitudes and beliefs of childbirth on mode and experience of birth
Haines, H. M., Rubertsson, C., Pallant, J., & Hildingsson, I. (2012) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-12-55 · Cited by 217
Long, Q., Kingdon, C., Yang, F., Renecle, M. D., Jahanfar, S., Bohren, M. A., & Betrán, A. P. (2018) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672 · Cited by 159
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kingdon, C., Neilson, J., Singleton, V, Gyte, G., Hart, A., Gabbay, M., & Lavender, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Lancashire (GB)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Lancaster University (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kingdon, C
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-05-11
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 886-895
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2102302915
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 13.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- birth choice, vaginal delivery, maternal autonomy, primigravida, women's preferences, obstetric decision-making, cesarean section rate
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cesarean Section, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Parity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Satisfaction, Personal Autonomy, Delivery, Obstetric, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
