Volume 20, Issue 2 (Pajouhan Scientific Journal, Spring 2022)                   Pajouhan Sci J 2022, 20(2): 103-111 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.ARUMS.REC.1398.072

XML Persian Abstract Print

1- Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Ardebil University of Medical Sciences, Ardebil, Iran , hamidzade2015@gmail.com
2- Department of Public Health, School of Health, Ardebil University of Medical Sciences, Ardebil, Iran
3- Department of Healthcare Management, School of Health, Ardebil University of Medical Sciences, Ardebil, Iran
Abstract:   (1623 Views)
Background and Objectives: Health personnel are among the most influential people in determining the type of delivery in mothers. Female medical students are considered as future health workers and future mothers of the society. The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and attitude of female students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences towards the advantages and disadvantages of different types of childbirth.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 188 female students living in dormitories of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences as a sample of all disciplines and entrances were randomly assigned to the study. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire including demographic information and knowledge and attitude questions about the benefits and complications of natural delivery and cesarean section. Data were collected by referring to the girls' dormitories of the university and analyzed.
Results: The results showed that the mean age of students was 21.97 ± 2.07. 170 (90.4%) were single and 18 (9.6%) were married. The mean knowledge and attitude of students towards the type of delivery were 27.26 ± 4.03 and 33.76 ± 6.94, respectively. The relationship between knowledge and attitude was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The correlation between knowledge and attitude and demographic variables (age, marital status, field and place of residence) was not significant (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: The results of this study showed that about 20% of students had sufficient knowledge and attitude about the benefits and complications of natural childbirth and cesarean section. With increasing access to sexual health resources, low level of knowledge and attitude of students does not seem acceptable, so the necessary measures should be included, including the advantages and disadvantages of natural childbirth and cesarean section in the course of medical students, education through the media. Public and cyberspace and holding cultural educational workshops to increase the level of awareness and attitude of students.
Full-Text [PDF 583 kb]   (1048 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Health Sciences
Received: 2020/07/26 | Accepted: 2020/09/15 | Published: 2022/05/31

1. Seçkiner PC, Tezcan S. Turkey's rising trend in caesarean section: Who are these women? Proceeding of the European population Conference. Vienns: Austria; 1-4 Sep 2010.
2. Bolhack J. Moral luck and the ethics of the rising cesarean rate. [Thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Public Health; 2012.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026] [PMID]
4. Atout MM. Non-medical factors affect caesarean section rates among developing countries. Canadian J Sci Ind Res. 2012;3(4):179-83.
5. Boyle A, Reddy UM. Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: the scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36(5):308-14. [DOI:10.1053/j.semperi.2012.04.012] [PMID]
6. Jamshidimanesh M, Oskouie F, Jouybary L, Sanagoo A. The process of women's decision making for selection of cesarean delivery. Iran J Nurs. 2009;21(56):55-67. [Persian].
7. Sharghi A, Kamran A, Sharifirad G. Factors influencing delivery method selection in primiparous pregnant women referred to health centers in Ardabil, Iran. Health Serv Res. 2011;7(3):364-72. [Persian].
8. Ghorbani F, Ghorbani L, Rezaei E, Ebrahimi E. Jurisprudential approach, medical to the criterion of selective cesarean section prohibition. Teb va Tazkiiye. 2019;27(1):74-92. [Persian].
9. Farhud DD, Kamali MS, Marzban M. Annuality of birth, delivery types and sex ratio in Tehran, Iran. Anthropol Anz. 1986;44(2):137-41.
10. Khosravi Sh. The rate of cesarean section in Iran is three times that of the world. Proceeding of the National Conference on Midwifery and Women's Health. Mashhad, Iran; 11 Dec 2019. [Persian].
11. Mohammaditabar S, Kiani A, Heidari M. The survey on tendencies of primiparous women for selecting the mode of delivery. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2009;11(3):54-9. [Persian].
12. MiriFarahani L, AbbasiShavazi MJ. Caesarean section change trends in Iran and some demographic factors associated with them in the past three decades. JABS. 2012;2(3):127-34. [Persian].
13. Lotfi R, Ramezani Tehrani F, Rostami Dovom M, Torkestani F, Abedini M, Sajedinejad S. Development of strategies to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Iran 2012-2014: a mixed methods study. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(12):1552-62.
14. Jamshidi Manesh M, Haghdoost Oskooi SF, Joybari L, Sanago A. The decision-making process of women in choosing cesarean delivery. IJN. 2009;21(56):55-67. [Persian].
15. Stivanello E, Knight M, Dallolio L, Frammartino B, Rizzo N, Fantini MP. Peripartum hysterectomy and cesarean delivery: a population‐based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(3):321-7. [DOI:10.3109/00016340903508627] [PMID]
16. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):490-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5] [PMID]
17. Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Temmerman M. Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk pregnancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliveries: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12(1):3. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-12-3] [PMID] []
18. Amiri M, Raei M, Chaman R, Rezaee N. Investigating some of the factors influencing choice of delivery type in women working in Shahroud University of Medical Sciences. Razi J Med Sci. 2013;20(106):1-9. [Persian].
19. Ghadimi M, Rasouli M, Motahhar S, Lajawardi Z, Imani A, Chubaz A, et al. Effective factors on the choice of delivery and attitude of pregnant women referring to non-Military hospitals of Social Security Organization in 2013. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci. 2014; 21(2):310-9. [Persian].
20. Sharifirad GH, Fathi Z, Tirani M, Mehaki B. Study on behavioral intention model (bim) to the attitude of pregnant women toward normal delivery and cesarean section in province of Esfahan-Khomeiny Shahr-2015. J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2007;15(1):19-23. [Persian].
21. Anderson NLR, Calvillo ER, Fongwa MN. Community-based approaches to strengthen cultural competency in nursing education and practice. J Transcult Nurs. 2007;18(1 Suppl):49S-59S. [DOI:10.1177/1043659606295567] [PMID]
22. Faraji Darkhaneh R, Zahiri Sooroori S, Farjad Bastani F. A survey of knowledge and attitude of pregnant women about delivery methods. J Guil Uni Med Sci. 2003,12(46):69-75. [Persian].
23. Sotoodeh Jahromi A, Rahmanian K, Madani A. Relation of knowledge about cesarean disadvantages and delivery mode selection in women with first pregnancy; South of Iran. J Res Med & Dent Sci. 2018;6(2):550-6.
24. Bigleryfar F, Visani Y, Delpisheh A. Mothers' awareness and attitude in the first pregnancy about choosing the type of delivery method. Iran J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;17(136):19-24. [Persian].
25. Yousefzadeh S, Esmaeili Darmiyan M, Asadi Younesi M, Shakeri M. The effect of a training program during pregnancy on the attitude and intention of nulliparous women to choose the delivery mode. J Midwifery Reproductive Health. 2016;4(3):704-11.
26. Rafati F, Rafati SH, Madani A, Mashayekhi F, Pilevarzadeh M. Related factors to choose cesarean section among Jiroft pregnant women. J Prevent Med. 2014;1(1):23-30. [Persian].
27. Duma N, Madiba T. The prevalence of peripartum depression and its relationship to mode of delivery and other factors among mothers in Ixopo, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. S Afr J Psychol. 2020; 50(4). [DOI:10.1177/0081246320931355]
28. Hopkins K. Are Brazillian women really choosing to delivery by Cesarean? Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(5):725-40. [DOI:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00480-3] [PMID]
29. Kasai KE, Nomura RMY, Benute GRG, de Lucia MC, Zugaib M. Women's opinions about mode of birth in Brazil: a qualitative study in a public teaching hospital. Midwifery. 2010;26(3):319-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2008.08.001] [PMID]
30. Mosadeghrad AM. Health strengthening plan, a supplement to Iran health transformation plan: letter to the editor. Tehran Univ Med J. 2019;77(8):537-8. [Persian].
31. Ebtekar F, Ghasri H, Rahmani K, Arianejad A, Hejazroo M, Lahouni F. Comparison of cesarean causes before and after implementation of health sector evolution plan in Kurdistan Province. S J Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedical Faculty. 2019;5(3):54-62.
32. Iobst SE. Factors influencing the Use of labor management interventions and their effect on cesarean birth. [Thesis]. Baltimore, Maryland: University of Maryland; 2018.
33. Khodabandeh F, Seyed Rasouli A, Mansouri A. Attitudes of pregnant women towards natural childbirth. Proceeding of the 1st Annual Conference of Students of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. Sabzevar, Iran: Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences; 16 Dec 2016. [Persian].

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.