Cesarean and Vaginal Birth in Canadian Women: A Comparison of Experiences
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Many publications have examined the reasons behind the rising cesarean delivery rate around the world. Women’s responses to the Maternity Experiences Survey of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System were examined to explore correlates of having a cesarean section on other experiences surrounding labor, birth, mother‐infant contact, and breastfeeding. Methods: A randomly selected sample of 8,244 estimated eligible women stratified primarily by province and territory was drawn from the May 2006 Canadian Census. Completed responses were obtained from 6,421 women (78%). Results: Three‐quarters of the women (73.7%) gave birth vaginally and 26.3 percent by cesarean section, including 13.5 percent with a planned cesarean and 12.8 percent with an unplanned cesarean. In addition to more interventions in labor, women who had a cesarean birth after attempting a vaginal birth had less mother‐infant contact after birth and less optimal breastfeeding practices. Conclusion: Findings from the Maternity Experiences Survey indicated that women who have cesarean births experience more interventions during labor and birth and have less optimal birthing and early parenting outcomes. (BIRTH 37:1 March 2010)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 Canada, skin-to-skin contact within the WHO's recommended time frame is achieved in less than 50% of deliveries.
“In Canada, skin-to-skin contact within the WHO’s recommended time frame is achieved in less than 50% of deliveries.4,5”
From Women’s experiences of skin-to-skin cesarean birth compared to standard cesarean birth: a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predictors of readiness for hospital discharge after birth: Building evidence for practice
Malagon‐Maldonado, G., Connelly, C. D., & Bush, R. A. (2017) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/wvn.12208 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Machold, C. A., O’Rinn, S. E., McKellin, W. H., Ballantyne, G., & Barrett, J. F. R. (2021) · CMAJ Open · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200079 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chalmers, B., Kaczorowski, J., Darling, E., Heaman, M., Fell, D. B., O’Brien, B., Lee, L., & for the Maternity Experiences Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Public Health Agency of Canada (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Chalmers, Beverley
- ORCID
- Venue
- Birth
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-24
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-49
- ISSN
- 0730-7659 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-536X
- OpenAlex
- W2073116584
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 9.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Birth (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Breastfeeding Practices and Influences
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Keywords
- cesarean section, vaginal delivery, labor interventions, mother-infant contact, breastfeeding practices, Canadian women
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Breast Feeding, Canada, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Mother-Child Relations, Population Surveillance, Pregnancy, Women, Patient Satisfaction, Parturition, Delivery, Obstetric
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