Social determinants of anesthesia choice for cesarean section in mothers attending selected primary health care centers of Tehran
Social Determinants of Health,
Vol. 3 No. 1 (2017),
15 June 2017
,
Page 26-31
https://doi.org/10.22037/sdh.v3i1.18538
Abstract
Background: There are different techniques for anesthesia in Cesarean Section (C/S), which can be affected by different factors including mothers and health care providers' preferences. The objective of the present study was to evaluate social determinants of anesthesia choice for Cesarean Section in mothers attending selected primary health care centers of Tehran.
Methods: The current descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in mothers who had a history of C/S and settled in catchment area of selected Primary Health Care centers known as Defined Population (DP). The DP is linked to Social Determinants of Health Research center affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran.
Results: Totally, 1408 mothers participated in the study. The mean±SD age of mothers was 27.6±4.42, more than 50% of the participants had university education, and about 25% of mothers were unemployed. The previous history of C/S was reported by 29.9% of mothers and 91.9% of these mothers had experienced general anesthesia. Anesthesia choice of the study participants was as follows: 562 (39.9%) general anesthesia, 566 (40.2%) local anesthesia, 231 (16.4) had no idea about the anesthesia method, and 46 (3.5%) did not want to have C/S. The most frequent person with whom mothers discussed the method of anesthesia prior to their admission was their gynecologist (44%). The final decisions for choosing anesthesia method were made by the patient in about 40% of the participants.
Conclusion: Informing mothers appropriately about anesthesia procedure and possible complications of each technique in the prenatal period can help mothers for choosing the best method of anesthesia and may increase mothers' tendency to have local anesthesia.
- Cesarean Section
- Primary Health Care
- Social Determinants of Health
How to Cite
References
Niino Y. The increasing cesarean rate globally and what we can do about it. Biosci Trends. 2011;5(4):139–50.
WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. World Health Organization. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278843. Accessed: February 22, 2017.
World health statistics 2016: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. World Health Organization; 2016.
Farahani L, Shavazi M. Caesarean Section Change Trends in Iran and Some Demographic Factors Associated with them in the Past Three Decades. J Fasa Univ Med Sci. 2012;2(3):127–34.
Khosravii A, Nalafi F, Rahbar MR, Motlagh ME. Landscape indicators of health in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2009;439.
Azami-aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health. 2014;43(5):545.
Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmoudi M. Assessment of cesarean section rate and its affecting factors in birth facilities of Tehran. Payesh. 2002;3(1): 5–10.
Bukar M, Kwari DY, Moruppa JY, Ndonya DN. Anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: choice of technique among antenatal attendees in North-eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(8):822-5.
Saunders TA, Stein DJ, Dilger JP. Informed consent for labor epidurals: a survey of Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology anesthesiologists from the United States. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2006 Apr;15(2):98-103.
Gulur P, Nishimori M, Ballantyne JC. Regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia, morbidity and mortality. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20(2):249-63.
Dick WF. Anaesthesia for caesarean section (epidural and general): effects on the neonate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;59 Suppl:S61-7.
Bamigboye AA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section: RHL commentary (last revised: 29 November 2007). The WHO Reproductive Health Library. 2007. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/rhl/topics/pregnancy-and-childbirth/care-during-childbirth/caesarean-section/regional-versus-general-anaesthesia-caesarean-section. Accessed: February 22, 2017.
Kwiatosz-Muc M, Lesiuk W. [Effects of choice of anaesthesia on the patients image of the anaesthesiologist]. Anestezjol Intens Ter. 2011;43(3):144-7.
Ngan Kee WD, Hung VY, Roach VJ, Lau TK. A survey of factors influencing patients' choice of anaesthesia for caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;37(3):300-3.
Karaaslan P, Aydın C, Aksu T. Factors Influencing the Preference of Regional Anaesthesia in the Obstetric Population: A Survey Study. Turk J Anaesth Reanim. 2014;42:176–81.
Fortescue C, Wee MY, Malhotra S, Yentis SM, Holdcroft A. Is preparation for emergency obstetric anaesthesia adequate? A maternal questionnaire survey. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16(4):336-40.
Uppal V, Rooney KD, Young SJ. Better antenatal education is a good idea, but does not reduce maternal anxiety regarding anaesthesia for emergency caesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2009;18(1):97-8.
Sadeghi AF, Razavi S, Gachkar L, Sh S. Evaluation of effective parameters for method of anesthesia in cesarean section. Article in Persian]. Journal of Iranian Society Anesthesiology and Intensive Care. 2008;2:52-7.
Ahmad I, Afshan G. Knowledge and attitudes of Pakistani women towards anaesthesia techniques for caesarean section. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011;61(4):359-62.
Fassoulaki A, Staikou C, Melemeni A, Kottis G, Petropoulos G. Anaesthesia preference, neuraxial vs general, and outcome after caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(8):818-21.
Down JF, Gowrie-Mohan S. A prospective observational study of the subjective experience of caesarean section under regional anaesthesia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2002;11(4):242-5.
Afolabi BB, Lesi FE, Merah NA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4.
- Abstract Viewed: 981 times
- PDF Downloaded: 436 times