The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To investigate why some women prefer caesarean sections and how decisions to medicalise birthing are influenced by patients, doctors, and the sociomedical environment. Design: Population based birth cohort study, using ethnographic and epidemiological methods. Setting: Epidemiological study: women living in the urban area of Pelotas, Brazil who gave birth in hospital during the study. Ethnographic study: subsample of 80 women selected at random from the birth cohort. Nineteen medical staff were interviewed. Participants: 5304 women who gave birth in any of the city's hospitals in 1993. Main outcome measures: Birth by caesarean section or vaginal delivery. Results: In both samples women from families with higher incomes and higher levels of education had caesarean sections more often than other women. Many lower to middle class women sought caesarean sections to avoid what they considered poor quality care and medical neglect, resulting from social prejudice. These women used medicalised prenatal and birthing health care to increase their chance of acquiring a caesarean section, particularly if they had social power in the home. Both social power and women's behaviour towards seeking medicalised health care remained significantly associated with type of birth after controlling for family income and maternal education. Conclusions: Fear of substandard care is behind many poor women's preferences for a caesarean section. Variables pertaining to women's role in the process of redefining and negotiating medical risks were much stronger correlates of caesarean section rates than income or education. The unequal distribution of medical technology has altered concepts of good and normal birthing. Arguments supporting interventionist birthing for all on the basis of equal access to health care must be reviewed. What is already known on this topic: Women's preferences for caesarean sections are understood to result from lack of knowledge and psychological aptitude to handle vaginal delivery and its consequences Efforts to reduce the demand for caesarean sections have focused on providing consumers with correct information on the relative risks associated with vaginal and operative deliveries What this study adds: In Brazil, many women prefer caesarean sections because they consider it good quality care Rich women are more likely to have caesarean sections, supporting the notion that medical intervention represents superior care Poor women may implement a series of medicalised practices that justifies the need for greater medical intervention during birth Interventions for reducing caesarean sections by educating physicians and patients about risk factors associated with birthing procedures are not sufficient
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR BIRTH
(1985) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92750-3 · Cited by 594
Long-term effects of cesarean sections: Ectopic pregnancies and placental problems
Hemminki, E., & Meriläinenb, J. (1996) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70608-7 · Cited by 246
Cited by
Renfrew, M. J., McFadden, A., Bastos, M. H., Campbell, J., Channon, A. A., Cheung, N. F., Silva, D. R. A. D., Downe, S., Kennedy, H. P., Malata, A., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60789-3 · Cited by 1,297
the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group, Souza, J., Gülmezoglu, A., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Carroli, G., Fawole, B., & Ruyan, P. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-71 · Cited by 721
Mazzoni, A., Althabe, F., Liu, N., Bonotti, A., Gibbons, L., Sánchez, A., & Belizán, J. (2011) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x · Cited by 306
Domingues, R. M. S. M., Dias, M. A. B., Nakamura-Pereira, M., Torres, J. A., d'Orsi, E., Pereira, A. P. E., Schilithz, A. O. C., & Leal, M. D. C. (2014) · Cadernos de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/0102-311x00105113 · Cited by 264
Maternal complications and cesarean section without indication: systematic review and meta-analysis
Mascarello, K. C., Horta, B. L., & Silveira, M. F. (2017) · Revista de Saúde Pública · doi:10.11606/s1518-8787.2017051000389 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Béhague, D. P., Victora, C. G., & Barros, F. C.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-04-20
- Volume
- 324
- Issue
- 7343
- Pages
- 942
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1977474884
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.324.7343.942
- The paper
- Béhague, D. P., Victora, C. G., & Barros, F. C. (2002). Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7343.942
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.