Pondicherry Journal of Nursing

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Knowledge and Attitude on Mode of Childbirth among Primigravid Women Attending Antenatal Outpatient Department at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry

V Poongodi, Kandasamy Renuka

Citation Information : Poongodi V, Renuka K. Knowledge and Attitude on Mode of Childbirth among Primigravid Women Attending Antenatal Outpatient Department at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry. 2020; 13 (4):78-81.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10084-12169

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Background: Delivery mechanism is a spontaneous process and requires no intervention. Advance in medical technology in maternity care have drastically reduced maternal and infant mortality. Childbirth is not only of great importance to the mother and her partner, but also to the entire family. It is a profound event which is physiological, psychosocial and metaphysical. This is the whole family's joy and hope that pushes the mother to face all of the pain associated with this. Aims and objectives: To assess the knowledge and attitude regarding mode of childbirth among primigravid women. Materials and methods: Descriptive research approach and design was adopted for this study. Sixty primigravid women were selected by purposive sampling technique based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic variables were collected using structured questionnaire, structured knowledge questionnaire used to assess the knowledge regarding mode of childbirth and five point rating scale was used to assess the attitude regarding mode of childbirth. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive and inferential statistics like frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, Spearman's Rank Correlation and Chi-square test. Results: Among 60 primigravid women 40 (66.7%) had moderately adequate knowledge and 20 (33.3%) had adequate knowledge regarding mode of childbirth. Regarding the attitude 53 (88.3%) had positive and 7 (11.7%) had neutral attitude towards normal vaginal delivery and 8 (13.3%) had positive and 52 (86.7%) had neutral attitude towards cesarean section. By using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient there was no correlation between mode of childbirth (normal vaginal delivery vs cesarean section) among primigravid women. By using Chi-square, findings showed that there was no significant association between the level of knowledge and attitude regarding mode of childbirth among primigravid women at p < 0.05 level. Conclusion: This study concludes that the preference of mode of childbirth is very important among healthy primigravid women. Our research suggests that women are not responsible for the increase in cesarean section rates. Women have to accept the medically-indicated reasons for mode of delivery.

  1. Mungrue K, Nixon C, David Y, Dookwah D, Durga S, Greene K, et al. Trinidadian women's knowledge, perceptions, and preferences regarding cesarean section: how do they make choices? Int J Womens Health 2010;2:387–391. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S12857.
  2. Kushtagi P, Guruvare S. Documenting indications for cesarean deliveries. J Postgrad Med 2008;54(1):52–53. DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.39195.
  3. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey AB. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 2006;113(11):1253–1258. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01069.x.
  4. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007;18(4): 485–486. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318068646a.
  5. Soltani H, Sandall J. Organisation of maternity care and choices of mode of birth: a worldwide view. Midwifery 2012;28(2):146–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.009.
  6. Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: the paradox. Lancet 2006;368(9546):1472–1473. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06) 69616-5.
  7. Nouri TS. Relationship of knowledge and attitude with reasons for cesarean selection among pregnant women of Rasht health centers that were applicant for cesarean. J Guilan Univ Med Sci 2006;15: 75–84.
  8. Devendra K, Arulkumaran S. Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2003;32: 577–581.
  9. Pezeshki Z, Pezeshk S. Educating quaternary prevention (P4) in Iran for decreasing the harms and costs of unnecessary services in clinical medicine and public health. Payesh 2013;12:329–332.
  10. Rozenberg P. Evaluation of cesarean rate: a necessary progress in modern obstetrics. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2004;33(4):279–289. DOI: 10.1016/S0368-2315(04)96456-3.
  11. Tita ATN, Landon MB, Spong CY, Lai Y, Leveno KJ, Varner MW, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 2009;360(2):111–120. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803267.
  12. Jurdi R, Khawaja M. Caesarean section rates in the Arab region: a cross-national study. Health Policy Plan 2004;19(2):101–110. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czh012.
  13. Badakhsh MH, Seifoddin M, Khodakarami N, Gholami R, Moghimi S. Rise in cesarean section rate over a 30-year period in a public hospital in Tehran, Iran. Arch Iran Med 2012;15:4–7.
  14. Bagheri A, Masoudi Alavi N, Abbaszadeh F. Iranian obstetricians’ views about the factors that influence pregnant women's choice of delivery method: a qualitative study. Women Birth 2013;26(1):e45–e49. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2012.09.004.
  15. Hajian S, Shariati M, Najmabadi KM, Yunesian M, Ajami ME. Psychological predictors of intention to deliver vaginally through the extended parallel process model: a mixed-method approach in pregnant Iranian women. Oman Med J 2013;28(6):395–403. DOI: 10.5001/omj.2013.115.
  16. Ghotbi F, Akbari Sene A, Azargashb E, Shiva F, Mohtadi M, Zadehmodares S, et al. Women's knowledge and attitude towards mode of delivery and frequency of cesarean section on mother's request in six public and private hospitals in Tehran, Iran, 2012. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40(5):1257–1266. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12335.
  17. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish obstetricians’ personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;111(2):164–166. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00214-8.
  18. Bryanton J, Gagnon AJ, Johnston C, Hatem M. Predictors of women's perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008;37(1):24–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00203.x.
  19. Lowe NK. Maternal confidence for labor: Development of the childbirth self-efficacy inventory. Res Nurs Health 1993;16(2):141–149. DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770160209.
  20. Penna L, Arulkumaran S. Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;82(3):399–409. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00217-0.
  21. Blomquist JL, Quiroz LH, Macmillan D, McCullough A, Handa VL. Mothers’ satisfaction with planned vaginal and planned cesarean birth. Am J Perinatol 2011;28(5):383–388. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1274508.
  22. Ip WY, Tang CS, Goggins WB. An educational intervention to improve women's ability to cope with childbirth. J Clin Nurs 2009;18(15): 2125–2135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02720.x.
  23. Zamani F, Shahry P, Kalhori M. Factors influencing cesarean section: a theory based study. Daneshvar 2011;19:1–10.
  24. Fenwick J, Staff L, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Bayes S. Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy? Midwifery 2010;26(4):394–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.011.
  25. Callister LC. Making meaning: women's birth narratives. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004;33(4):508–518. DOI: 10.1177/0884217504266898.
  26. Yilmaz SD, Bal MD, Beji NK, Uludag S. Women's preferences of method of delivery and influencing factors. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2013;15(8):683–689. DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.11532.
  27. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA, Walton I. A prospective study of women's views of factors contributing to a positive birth experience. Midwifery 1999;15(1):40–46. DOI: 10.1016/S0266-6138(99)90036-0.
  28. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu N, Bonotti A, Gibbons L, Sánchez A, et al. Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG 2011;118(4):391–399. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x.
  29. Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow J, Benness C, Phipps H. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: the views of pregnant women and clinicians. BJOG 2008;115(12):1494–1502. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01892.x.
  30. Liu NH, Mazzoni A, Zamberlin N, Colomar M, Chang OH, Arnaud L, et al. Preferences for mode of delivery in nulliparous Argentinean women: a qualitative study. Reprod Health 2013;10(1):12. DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-2.
  31. Wiklund I, Edman G, Andolf E. Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86(4):451–456. DOI: 10.1080/00016340701217913.
  32. Ryding EL, Lukasse M, Kristjansdottir H, et al. Pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and subsequent mode of birth - a six-country cohort study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2016;37(3):75–83. DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2016.1181055.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.