Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 27;45(2):798–807. doi: 10.1177/0300060517696217

Table 4.

Logistic regression analysis showing factors that significantly affected women’s preference for caesarean section compared with those who preferred vaginal delivery.

All women who preferred CS (n = 85)
Nulliparous women who preferred CS (n = 65)
Parous women who preferred CS (n = 20)
aOR 95% CI Statistical significance aOR 95% CI Statistical significance aOR 95% CI Statistical significance
Parity & delivery mode, nulliparous 3.8 1.0, 14.0 P < 0.05
Parity & delivery mode, parous, caesarean history 17.1 3.9, 75.6 P < 0.05 21.0 4.1, 106.9 P < 0.05
Age, ≥ 35 years 2.3 1.2, 4.5 P < 0.05 4.0 1.9, 8.3 P < 0.05
Living outside Beijing 7.6 1.1, 52.7 P < 0.05
No medical insurance 2.3 1.1, 5.0 P < 0.05
Gravidity (2+) 2.1 1.2, 3.8 P < 0.05 2.2 1.2, 4.0 P < 0.05
Only one information source 2.8 1.3, 5.9 P < 0.05 3.0 1.3, 6.9 P < 0.05
Lacking knowledge (>1 item) about CS complications 3.6 1.5, 8.7 P < 0.05
Lacking knowledge (>1 item) about VD complications 0.2 0.1, 0.4 P < 0.05 0.3 0.2, 0.6 P < 0.05
Thought doctors had no right to decide delivery mode 2.0 1.1, 3.8 P < 0.05 2.5 1.3, 4.9 P < 0.05

All independent variables presented in Table 1 were used in the model and those with a P < 0.05 were included.

CS, caesarean section; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; VD, vaginal delivery.