Abstract
Background:
Uncontrolled increase of C-section is one of the major problems in Iranian health system, such that C-section is the most common surgical procedure in the entire country’s hospitals in Obstetrics and Gynecology sections. A variety of complications also come along with cesarean.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean in Iran.
Materials and Methods:
forty-one articles were considered with respect to certain criteria and were included in a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis study. The systematic review’s search was conducted on SID, Iranmedx, Magiran, Medlib, PubMed, and Science Direct databases published between1999-2016. The weight of each included study was calculated according to its sample size and the reported prevalence of binomial distribution. A random-effects model using R and STATA (Version 11.2) software was utilized for analyzing data
Results:
The total number of the sample was 197514 pregnant women with a mean age of 26.72 yr. The prevalence of cesarean in Iran was estimated at 48%. The main reasons for the prevalence of cesarean in this study were mothers’ higher education, previous cesarean, and doctor recommendation. The most frequent complication in women undergoing cesarean was the muscular pain, and the most common fetal complications in newborns by caesarean delivery was transient tachypnea.
Conclusion:
The prevalence of C-section in Iran is much higher than what WHO recommends. It is essential, to decrease such a phenomenon, making the mothers aware of the risks of cesarean delivery, and establishing counselling sessions as well to eliminate the mothers’ fear of vaginal delivery.
Key Words: Cesarean, Iran, Prevalence, Meta-analysis
Introduction
Once upon a time in the last century, the modern cesarean delivery was begun to reduce the maternal and newborns complications, morbidity and mortality (1). Unfortunately nowadays, however, undergoing cesarean is not used only when necessary and only to save the mother and the baby; rather, it is gradually being assumed as something luxurious by some communities (2). In almost all of the scientific resources, the expected rate of cesarean delivery is considered as low as 13%, and according to the World Health Organization documents, it is recommended to be as low as 15% (3). Those documents also report the average rate of cesarean delivery in recent years has increased by 10-15% in the entire world’s countries. Some studies show that the probability that a woman undergoes a cesarean is 3 times more than that of 20 yr ago (4). The increasing caesarean section (C-section) has also been different in different countries (5), such that for developing countries it is much more than for developed ones. For example, caesarean rate in Brazil, Chile and China has increased up to 40-42% (6, 7). while, the rate of cesarean in Iran been reported from 26- 66.5% by various studies and as 87% by some private centers (8, 9). Cesarean delivery is carried out due to such various reasons as pregnancy at higher ages, lower number of a woman previous pregnancies, obesity, fetal distress, etc (10, 11). The most common reason cited for cesarean delivery in Iran, unlike the abovementioned reasons, is the previous cesarean (12). So, the main reason for the high rates of cesarean in Iran is an increased incidence of elective cesareans which are operated with no etiology just upon the patients’ request. According to some investigations, the main reason of elective cesareans in Iran is the fear of labor’s pain (8, 13). However, there are also other factors which affect the excessively increasing rate of cesarean in Iran such as people’s education, occupation, age, and place of residence (14, 15).
Cesareans without indications, as compared to Normal Vaginal Delivery (NVD), would bring about many complications for both mother and the baby (16, 17). In addition, the results of studies in the UK have shown that the risk of maternal death caused by cesarean delivery is 3 times more than that of NVD (18). Many people think there is more probability of newborns health in case of cesarean, while studies have shown that the risk of death in newborns by cesarean is 4 times as much as newborns born by NVD (19). The most serious complications for the babies born by cesarean are fetal respiratory problems such as Transient Tachypnea (TTN) and Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), surgical blade cuts, and increased rates of newborns admission in the neonatal intensive care unit (20-22). Also, experts believe that 1 min Apgar score of the newborns by cesarean is less that of the newborns by NVD (23).
Given that today, excessively increasing rate of cesarean section is one of the major problems in Iranian health system, numerous studies have been conducted in this field in Iran in the last two decades. Despite repeated statements made by the national media and medical records, few attempts have been made to identify the extent of the problem and to identify possible causes and complications. However, recently a meta-analytical study has been carried out on the prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran (24), but this article is based on studies conducted until 2011, also in the present study, in order to reduce the time effect, the articles published in the period 1999-2016 was investigated. Since the changes in the prevalence of C-section and its complications are very important, it was necessary to update the previous meta-analysis study.
The aim of this study was meta-analysis evaluation of the prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean in Iran.
Materials and methods
This paper evaluates the prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean in Iran using documentations review via a meta-analysis of the available resources within a period since oct 1999 to December 2016, this period was chosen consciously to reduce the time effect. Because, the time effect can be influenced by the changes in medical facilities and developments, community awareness and mothers attitude, on the prevalence and causes of cesarean section as well as maternal and neonatal complications due to C-section. So, choosing that period would help to make the results more realistic.
This studies contains several sections including accurate determination of the variables, data collection, data analysis, and interpreting the results. A variety of national and international scientific journals and scientific databases, such as PubMed, Iranmedx, SID, Medlib, Science Direct, Magiran were searched to find the results of conducted studies as well as papers presented in the relevant Iranian and international seminars and conferences. Search for the articles was carried out mainly through systematic searching for the valid keywords like “cesarean, delivery, prevalence, neonatal complications, maternal complications, Iran” as well as all their possible combinations both in Persian and English.
Article selection
At first, all papers contained in the aforementioned databases were independently evaluated by the researchers to identify and select the relevant titles and abstracts. Then, the selected articles were independently entered into the research process. The main criterion for any study to be included in the research was referring to either of “cesarean prevalence”, “neonatal complications”, “maternal complications”, and “Iran” in its title or abstract. Studies which were not included in the preliminary studies or those on the areas unrelated to the subject of the present study (i.e. the research with the subject of cesarean, but without examining the causes and complications of cesarean delivery, and qualitative studies) were excluded.
Having determined the relevant studies in terms of their titles, the abstracts of the selected articles using were evaluated the STROBE checklist. The selected articles were fully investigated and all their information was entered in a form designed to extract the data. Then, the data were entered into Excel software. Subsequently, the data were moved from Excel into R and STATA software (version 11.2).
A Begged funnel plot and also the “trim and fill” method were used for correcting publication bias. The “Trim and fill” method, which makes strong symmetric assumptions, beside a sensitivity analysis, which is a cautious approach, make the conclusion of meta analyze under several plausible possibilities. regarding the extent of publication bias, the conclusion would be different between standard approach and the other approaches (25).
Statistical analysis
Given that the main criteria in this study were the prevalence of cesarean, its variance (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated using the binomial distribution. The weight of each study was considered as the reciprocal of its variance and then was used to participate in combining the reported prevalence of C-section from the selected studies to calculate a weighted average of the general C-section rate. Q test and I2 index with α significance level of less than 10% were used to investigate heterogeneity. Heterogeneous studies, if they existed, were analyzed using a meta-analysis model with random effects. R and STATA software (version 11.2) was used to analyze the data.
Results
Having eliminated the repeated and irrelevant studies, 41 articles remained with the objectives of the research which were selected and examined (Appendix 1). The study selection process is shown in Figure 1.
Appendix 1.
Cesarean complications | Listed items Cesarean causes | Prevalence (%) | Year | Sample Size | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fetal distress, lack of labor progression, fear of pain, previous Cesarean , tubal ligation, History of infertility, miscarriage and stillbirth, maternal blood pressure | 43 | 2012 | 697 | (4) | |
TTN, RDS, labor injuries,NICU admission | |||||
Lack of labor progression, previous Cesarean , abnormal presentation, doctor recommendation, mother request, multiple pregnancy, private hospitals, higher education, working mothers, CPD ,decreased fetal movement, blood pressure | 66.5 | 2003 | 824 | (13) | |
Lack of labor progression, previous Cesarean , abnormal presentation, fetal distress, maintaining the health of both the mother and fetus | 23.6 | 2000 | 1080 | (15) | |
TTN، RDS | 81 | 2008 | 2023 | (22) | |
Mother suggest | 43.9 | 2012 | 459 | (28) | |
Spouse's education, lack of awareness | 41.9 | 2014 | 392 | (31) | |
Private hospitals, previous Cesarean , higher education, working mothers, gravidity | 28.4 | 2009 | 250 | (35) | |
Private hospitals, previous Cesarean , mother request, Lack of knowledge | 76.3 | 2010 | 360 | (36) | |
Fever, muscular pain, infection, labor injuries | Fetal distress, lack of labor progression, maintaining the health of both the mother and fetus, previous Cesarean , previous Cesarean , higher education, working mothers, high pregnancy age | 40.3 | 2010 | 1500 | (48) |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | higher education, working mothers, marriage age | _ | 2009 | 618 | (50) |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | higher education, working mothers | _ | 2013 | 200 | (52) |
labor injuries | 40 | 2005 | 13117 | (56) | |
Fetal distress, lack of labor progression, maintaining the health of both the mother and fetus, mother request, multiple pregnancy, mother disease, private hospitals, high pregnancy age, low pregnancy age | 51.6 | 2013 | 103348 | (59) | |
Fetal distress, lack of labor progression, previous Cesarean , abnormal appearance, mother request | 32.6 | 2013 | 950 | (60) | |
Lack of labor progress, fear of pain, doctor recommendation, request mother | 58.6 | 2011 | 396 | (61) | |
Apgar score below 7 | 13 | 2010 | 294 | (62) | |
Abnormal appearance, repeated Cesarean , fear of pain, multiple pregnancy, high pregnancy age, higher education, history of infertility,CPD, history of abortion or still birth, history of maternal hypertentation | 59 | 2012 | 200 | (63) | |
Failure of labor progression, fetal distress, abnormal presentation, previous Cesarean , tubal ligation, multiple pregnancy, history of ,infertility, CPD , decrease fetal movement | 63.3 | 2012 | 600 | (64) | |
Private hospitals , Class status | 26.1 | 2002 | 5874 | (65) | |
Average maternal admission | 86 | 2007 | 411 | (66) | |
RDS, abnormal bleeding, labor injuries | Lack of progress of labor, fetal distress, abnormal presentation | 19.1 | 1999 | 5440 | (67) |
Fever, muscular pain, headache, infections, digestive problems | 48 | 2010 | 300 | (68) | |
TTN, RDS | High pregnancy age, low pregnancy age, working mothers | 50 | 2005 | 600 | (69) |
TTN, RDS, NICU admission, Apgar score below 7 | Abnormal appearance, previous Cesarean , mother request, high pregnancy age, low pregnancy age, higher education | _ | 2013 | 250 | (70) |
Abnormal bleeding, fever, digestive problems, average maternal admission | 73 | 2004 | 593 | (71) | |
Abnormal bleeding, fever, infections, digestive problems, average maternal admission, Apgar score below 7 | Fetal distress, lack of labor progression | 68 | 2005 | 253 | (72) |
SUI | Lack of labor progress, maternal request, mother disease | 49.1 | 2006 | 702 | (73) |
Average maternal admission | 42 | 2014 | 536 | (74) | |
RDS | 20 | 2005 | 170 | (75) | |
Lack of labor progress, fetal distress, previous Cesarean , mother request, multiple pregnancy, private hospitals , CPD , Class status , Recommended acquaintances | 45 | 2012 | 24241 | (76) | |
Lack of labor progress, mother request, previous Cesarean , tubal ligation, high pregnancy age, low pregnancy age, higher education , CPD | 44 | 2004 | 13599 | (77) | |
Mother request, high pregnancy age, low pregnancy age, higher education, working mothers ,the husband request | 41.4 | 2013 | 384 | (78) | |
Average maternal admission | Higher education, working mothers | 49 | 2013 | 1172 | (79) |
Fetal distress, lack of labor progression | 26 | 2011 | 1537 | (80) | |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | previous Cesarean , fear of pain, doctor recommendation, tubal ligation, private hospitals, higher education, working mothers , Lack of knowledge | _ | 2006 | 60 | (81) |
Abnormal bleeding, digestive problems, SUI, muscular pain, headache | High pregnancy age, low pregnancy age, higher education, working mothers | 61 | 2012 | 308 | (82) |
SUI | 71 | 2008 | 1400 | (83) | |
SUI | 16 | 2001 | 400 | (84) | |
Abnormal bleeding, digestive problems, labor injuries, SUI, RDS, NICU admission | Higher education, working mothers | 46 | 2012 | 246 | (85) |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | Higher education, working mothers | _ | 2012 | 366 | (86) |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | Higher education, working mothers | _ | 2011 | 180 | (87) |
Lack of sexual satisfaction | High pregnancy age, higher education, working mothers | _ | 2010 | 280 | (88) |
SUI | 16 | 2001 | 400 | (84) | |
Abnormal bleeding, gastrointestinal problems, SUI, RDS, labor injuries, hospitalized in the NICU | Higher education of mother, working mothers | - | 2012 | 246 | (85) |
sexual dissatisfaction | Higher education of mother, working mothers | - | 2012 | 266 | (86) |
sexual dissatisfaction | Higher education of mother, working mothers | 2011 | 180 | (87) | |
sexual dissatisfaction | Maternal age, education, working mothers | 2010 | 280 | (88) | |
Location, lack of awareness, marriage age, class status, history of infertility, miscarriage and stillbirth, CPD, advised acquaintances | 47 | 2012 | 600 | (89) | |
Fear of pain, doctors recommendation, repeated Cesarean section, maternal request, Parity, Location, abortions and stillbirths, the wife request | 57 | 2013 | 450 | (90) | |
Maternal request, abnormal presentation, location, Age at marriage, abortion and stillbirth, CPD | 37 | 2000 | 500 | (91) | |
Fear of pain, lack of awareness, class status, spouse's education, marriage age | 19 | 2015 | 196 | (92) | |
Fear of pain, doctors recommendation, mother request, lack of awareness, class status, place of residence, the husband request, relatives advised | - | 2016 | 739 | (93) |
All the studies examined were cross-sectional researches. In these studies, the sampling method was census; hospital profiles and questionnaires were used for data collection which was completed through interviews and observations. The total number of the sample was 197514 pregnant women with a mean age of 26.82±5.13 yr old, out of whom 94807 women (48%) had undergone cesarean delivery and 102707 (52%) had had a labor through NVD. The most frequent studies were for Tehran province (25.6%). The lowest incidence of cesarean was related to a study by Soleimanizadeh and colleagues in Bam (13%) (26), and the highest incidence of cesarean was reported in a study by Azizi in Tehran (86%) (27). From a total of 44 articles entered into the study, 41 were included in the meta-analysis.
A Cochran’s Q test showed the heterogeneity of the studies’ findings (I2=100 %) so that a random effect model was used in all the subsequent stages. The prevalence of cesarean with CI of 95% for all studies in all regions of Iran is shown in Figure 2. Based on random effect model, cesarean rate in Iran was calculated as 48% (95%CI=36-59%). Individual and social variables affecting the incidence of caesarean section, in this study, using repetition frequency in studies is shown in Table I. Through content analyzing the reasons of occurrence of cesarean section were divided into two sets: 1) medical reasons 2) Non-medical reasons. The impacts of any of the risk factors of cesarean delivery, as the mean of the percentages, are shown in Table I. As seen in Figure 3, mothers’ higher education and mothers’ employment with 16 and 15 repetitions, were taken into consideration as an important socio-demographic factor for the prevalence of cesarean in the reviewed articles. High pregnancy age (>35 yr) was also another factor affecting the incidence of cesarean mentioned in the articles. The first set of factors affecting cesarean is medical reasons including a condition that the health of the mother or fetus is endangered in case of surgical intervention. The mean of any of these reasons is shown in Figure 2. As it can be seen in Figure 4, among the reasons studied in this research, previous cesarean (42.25%), reduced fetal movements (2.1%) and fetal distress (22.11%) are the main medical reasons for cesarean delivery. Also among the reviewed medical reasons, tubal ligation (2.55%) and multiple pregnancies (3.2%) are the least affecting factors. The second set of factors affecting the prevalence of cesarean examined in this study was including non-medical reasons. Such reasons are most commonly associated with the attitude and knowledge of families and doctors and mentality and attitude of the individuals. These factors are shown in Figure 3.
Table I.
Factor | Frequency (%) |
---|---|
Individual and social variables | |
Number of pregnancy | 2 |
Low age of mother | 3 |
Husband education | 3 |
Marriage age | 4 |
Location | 4 |
Class status | 5 |
Lack of knowledge | 6 |
Private hospital | 7 |
Mother old age | 10 |
Maternal employment | 12 |
Academic education | 16 |
Medical factors | |
Decrease Fetal movement | 2.1 |
Twain | 3.2 |
History of abortion | 3.4 |
History of infertility | 3.8 |
Preeclampsia | 4.2 |
Tubal ligation | 4.5 |
Abnormal presentation | 7.23 |
Maternal disease | 8.3 |
CPD | 8.75 |
Failure of labor progression | 16.75 |
Fetal distress | 22.11 |
Repeated Cesarean | 42.25 |
Non-medical factors | |
Recommended acquaintances | 13.3 |
Husband suggests | 14.8 |
Mother suggests | 19.1 |
Preserve the mother's health | 24.5 |
Preserve the fetal's health | 25.5 |
Fear of pain | 34.62 |
Doctor suggest | 38.3 |
CPD: Cephalopelvic disproportion
As shown in Figure 5, doctor recommendation (38.8%) and mothers’ fear of vaginal delivery (34.62%) are the most important non-medical factors affecting the cesarean prevalence rate. Also among non-medical reasons examined it closely with an average of 13.3%, the lowest factor affecting cesarean section. Common complications resulting from the cesarean delivery were also divided into two categories of maternal and neonatal complications, in order to be examined separately. For a better comparison of cesarean complications with those of vaginal delivery in both mothers and the newborns, the average of the percentages mentioned for both cesarean and vaginal delivery complications included in this study are presented in figures 6 and 7. As shown in Figure 6, the average frequency of such maternal complications as muscular pain, headache, lack of sexual satisfaction after delivery, digestive problems, fever and infection in women who had undergone cesarean section is higher than that of the women who had had normal virginal delivery. Abnormal bleeding and stress urinary incontinence is also higher in the cesarean group. In addition, muscular pain (45.1%) and headache (41%) are the most frequent complications of caesarean section for the mothers. Moreover, the average maternal admission was 1.65 days for the virginal delivery and 3.1 days for the cesarean group. As it can be seen in figure 7, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU: 12.45%) and Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS: 7.75%) the most common cesarean newborn complications. The frequency of NICU, RDS, TTN, and below-7-Apgar score in cesarean newborns were also higher than those of normal vaginal newborns. In contrast, labor injuries to the newborns are more common during vaginal delivery than during cesarean delivery (Table I). Meta-regression model demonstrated an increasing trend in prevalence of cesarean in Iran during 2000 till 2015.
Publication bias
Publication bias was checked using a Begg’s funnel plot. To check the large study bias at first, the studies were sorted from the most precise to the least precise (according to standard error), and then a cumulative random effect meta-analysis was run to realize if there was any trivial change in effect size (Figure 8.A). Trim and fill analysis was done as well to check the effects of missing study on the overall results. Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill analysis showed that, the effect of missing studies keep results unchanged (Figure 8.B). An Egger’s test also showed a non-significant effect of publication bias (t=-0.64, p=0.527)
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was done to find the effect of influential studies on the overall results. There were no any study to change the overall results.
Table II.
Prevalence of cesarean
% (95% CI) |
Number of studies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Time course | ||||
1999-2004 | 38 (27-49) | 8 | ||
2005-2009 | 53 (41-65) | 11 | ||
2010-2014 | 50 (34-65) | 21 | ||
2015-2017 | 19 (14-24) | 1 | ||
Province | ||||
Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari | 44 (43-45) | 1 | ||
Ardebil | 59 (54-63) | 1 | ||
East Azerbaijan | 28 (23-34) | 1 | ||
Gilan | 52 (29-74) | 2 | ||
Hormozgan | 24 (21-26) | 1 | ||
Isfahan | 76 (72-81) | 1 | ||
Khorasan | 47 (37-57) | 5 | ||
Kerman | 45 (23-68) | 5 | ||
Khuzestan | 46 (37-54) | 2 | ||
Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad | 33 (32-34) | 1 | ||
Markazi | 29 (23-36) | 2 | ||
Mazandaran | 49 (0.2-97) | 3 | ||
Samnan | 58 (53-62) | 1 | ||
Fars | 47 (43-51) | 1 | ||
Tehran | 47 (33-62) | 10 | ||
West Azerbaijan | 61 (56-66) | 1 | ||
Yazd | 45 (44-46) | 1 | ||
Zanjan | 43 (39-47) | 1 |
Discussion
The results of the present study indicated that the rate of cesarean prevalence in Iran was estimated at 48%.
Higher education, mothers’ employment, high pregnancy age was the most important socio-demographic factors for the prevalence of cesarean delivery. Previous cesarean and fetal distress were also the most significant obstetrical-medical reasons for cesarean delivery. Doctor recommendation and fear of labor pain were also identified as the most important non-obstetrical and non-medical reasons for cesarean delivery. Among individual and social factors affecting cesarean, education, employment and maternal age had the greatest impact. Azami-aghdash et al reported the prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran about 48%. Their study included 34 articles in a meta-analysis model, while 41 articles are included in the meta-analysis model of this study, The search period was also from 1999 to 2016 vs. Azami-Aghdash’s one which was from 2000 to 2012 (24). Since the prevalence of cesarean was estimated based on the time course and province, the analysis of the subgroup for the time period showed that in the period of 2005-2009, the most prevalent cesarean section (53%) occurred in the country. The lowest prevalence of cesarean delivery was also found to be 19% between 2015 and 2017, which is largely due to the small number of studies carried out during that period. In the study of subgroup analysis based on the province of the study, Isfahan province with (76%) had the highest prevalence of cesarean section and Hormozgan province with (24%) had the lowest prevalence of Cesarean section. The interpretation for this difference in result depends on a number of factors, including socio-cultural differences and economic aspects in different parts of the country. Also, the difference in access to health care services, as well as the quantity and quality of prenatal care in different regions of the country, is effective in this difference.
In this study, the prevalence of C-section in Iran was 48%, which is similar to its corresponding result from the previous meta-analysis study. High education with 16 and 15-repeat and mother’s employment are considered as the most important individual and social factors in the prevalence of cesarean section in the reviewed articles. The high age of the mother (over 35) is also another factor affecting the prevalence of C-section. In the previous meta-analysis study, higher education and high maternal age were the most important personal and social factors affecting the prevalence of cesarean section.
The result of this study showed that repeat cesarean section with an average of 42.25% and fetal distress with an average of 22.11% are the main reasons for C-section. Also, among the medical reasons, the decrease in fetal movements with an average of 2.1% and multiple pregnancies with an average of 3.2% are the least effective factors on cesarean section. In the previous meta-analytic study, whereas the main reasons for C-section were repeated cesarean section with an average of 36.29%.
The result showed that, physician's recommendation with an average of 38.8% and fear of vaginal delivery pain with an average of 34.62% are the most important non-medical factors affecting the prevalence of C-section. In the previous meta-analytic study, the most common non-medical reasons for C-section were fear of vaginal delivery pain with an average of 39.33% and a physician's recommendation with an average of 28.45%.
Studies have shown that cesarean rate has been growing dramatically in Iran during the recent years. This increase is also seen in different parts of the world (28). According to a study conducted in the UK, one of every five pregnant women has a cesarean delivery; while the maximum cesarean rate in the country was only 4 percent 30 yr ago (29). The rate of cesarean in Iran is reported from 26- 66.5% by various studies, while it’s reported as even 87% by some private centers (8, 9). Such a wide range and outstanding differences could be due to several factors, including cultural differences, social and economic aspects in different areas of the country.
Different studies have reported different statistics regarding the prevalence of cesarean in different regions of Iran. The differences in the amount of access to health services as well as quantity and quality of prenatal care can also have a major influence on the prevalence of cesarean in different parts of the country.
The results of the articles reviewed in this study showed that cesarean rate among the women with higher education were higher than that of the women with lower education. Various studies have shown that the most effective option in their decision making regarding the mode of the delivery, is Obstetricians and Gynecologists (30, 31). It does not seem, however, that this is a direct result of an increased awareness; rather, it is due to the fact that with increasing levels of education, people are more likely to have better job opportunities and income, which will lead to a socio-economic growth, and then cesarean increase rate is socially regarded as a sign of higher social status and mother’s convenience. The results of the study showed that cesarean rates were higher in private hospitals than in public hospitals in such a way that 57.7% of the cesareans were carried out in private hospitals and 33.6% in public hospitals. Perhaps the reason for this dissimilarity is the difference between cesarean delivery financial tariffs and those of normal vaginal delivery, especially in the private centers, which will reflexively lead the doctors towards cesarean delivery. It can be said that the economic status of those who admit to private hospitals has resulted in a dramatic increase in the cesarean rates in these centers (31).
According to the results obtained in this study, doctor recommendation is an important reason for choosing cesarean delivery. In 70% of the cases, the doctor plays a major role in determining the delivery method (32). The role of doctors in increasing the cesarean rates in the past decades has been to such an extent that some researchers have regarded doctors’ medical judgment and their environmental conditions -not the patients’ medical condition- as the main reason for cesarean decisions (33, 34). Studies have shown that the most important reason for doctors’ unnecessary offers to perform caesarean were doctors’ lack of sufficient expertise in dealing with some demanding vaginal deliveries and doctors’ tendency to spend less time and earn more money performing delivery operations (35).
The results of the studies included in the present study indicated that the previous cesarean was the most significant obstetrical-medical reason for the incidence of cesarean delivery, which is consistent with the findings of most studies done in this area (13, 36-39). Most women, who have their first delivery by cesarean, may choose the same method for their subsequent delivery; and this would lead to an increase in cases of caesarean sections in the future (40). Therefore, through proper planning and awareness-raising during pregnancy, especially in primiparous women, a long step in maternal and neonatal health can be taken because of the fact that planning on primiparous women will affect the labor process in the future. It can also prevent the high cesarean rate due to previous cesareans in the future.
Review articles in this study showed that the cesarean rate among women with a higher education higher than women with lower education. Results of other studies, such as Ahmadnia and Murray showed an increase in maternal education level, C-section rates increased (40, 41). It seems that it is for this reason that increasing the level of education, job and income opportunities for people to be better, This increases the level of economic and social status And because C-section in terms of the social bookmarking higher status and be considered a sign of respect to comfort the mother, it contributes to an increase in caesarean sections. In this regard, it seems that high levels of C-sections tend to be employed in women can be due to the higher education and better economic situation of them (42). The results showed that the rate of C-section in private hospitals (57.7%) higher than public hospitals (33.6%), perhaps because of these financial differences between cesarean section and vaginal delivery tariffs, especially in the private centers that this practice unwanted leads to do by doctors, it can be said that differences in Economic status that people referred to private hospitals in these centers had been an increase in gross cesarean rate (43).The results showed a lack of awareness about delivery methods affect the choice of delivery method is such that 64.8% of women had a very low information about delivery, Studies have shown that raising awareness to change attitudes and ultimately change their health behavior, Therefore raising awareness of pregnant women about the complications and benefits of cesarean and vaginal delivery is effective first step to reduce caesarean sections without medical indication (44, 45). This study showed that individual and social variables, number of pregnancy have minimal impact on the incidence of cesarean section. Studies have shown that the average number of pregnancies for women with cesarean delivery was lower than women with vaginal delivery and cesarean section rate in nulliparous women is more than the other(46, 40).
Investigating the labor maternal complications in this study showed that post-delivery problems in women who had undergone cesarean were more than those of the women who had a labor through normal vaginal delivery. Such complications as muscular pain, headache and fever were observed more in the cesarean mothers, part of which can be attributed to anesthesia methods used in caesarean section (47, 48).
Today, researchers believe that one of the important reasons for women’s tendency towards cesarean is the negative impact they assume for the normal vaginal delivery to have on their sexual function after the delivery (49,50). This study revealed that frequency of lack of sexual satisfaction after delivery was higher in cesarean mothers than in women who had had normal vaginal delivery. Studies have shown that not only a safe vaginal delivery with a minimum of perineum trauma is not associated with sexual dysfunction, but also can lead to better sexual relations with the partner (51). Considering to the cultural conditions of the society and the importance of sexual satisfaction in marriage with an emphasis on the delivery method, the importance of a safe vaginal delivery with minimal trauma should always be taken into account. Moreover, training, proper consultancy, providing the couples with the appropriate information before, during and after the pregnancy is crucial.
Of the reasons for cesarean delivery, one is the belief that cesarean delivery would protect the health of the fetus. Neonatal complications in this study showed that respiratory disorders (TTN & RDS) were more prevalent among the newborns by Cesarean than among the newborns by vaginal delivery. Respiratory problems are of the main reasons for the newborns’ morbidity and mortality (46).Different studies have shown that respiratory complications have significantly been higher in newborns with cesarean. The risk is doubled for the caesarean deliveries performed before week 39 and especially for the mothers who had not experienced labor pain (52-54). Hence, experts recommend that for the sake of the newborns’ health, no cesareans be carried out without obstetrical indications and that cesareans are performed only in case of emergency and after the onset of delivery pain (53).
The results of the articles reviewed in this study revealed that cesarean has an important role in the prevention of labor injuries and trauma. Such traumatic complications as broken bones, cephalhematoma and obstetric asphyxia are more reported in many studies for vaginal delivery than caesarean (55-57), the reason for which can be lack of sufficient expertise for performing the normal vaginal delivery (17). Accordingly, to prevent any harm to the newborns and to amend the society's attitude towards normal vaginal delivery, fostering the awareness and the skills of the delivery operating personnel as well as improving the facilities and equipment is of absolute necessity.
The strength of this study is that updates the previous article, also we have included a new analytical part for the effect of the time course and province
Conclusion
Regarding its adverse effects on maternal and neonatal health and the health system as well, the intense and increasing of the prevalence of cesarean in Iran has become a pervasive problem. Hence, to reduce the cesarean rate and to direct the mothers towards normal vaginal delivery, providing practical solutions to the health system planners and authorities is of great significance. Given that the previous cesarean, doctor recommendation, fear of labor pain, and protecting the health of the fetus are the main reasons for cesarean delivery, such measures as proper training of the techniques for pain control and pain reduction, improving the quality of normal vaginal delivery services, culture-building practices for normal vaginal delivery, making women aware of the complications of cesarean delivery, and establishing a mechanism to halt the enforcement of doctors’ personal opinion can be beneficial.
Conflict of interest
There are no benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
References
- 1.Kayongo M, Rubardt M, Butera J, Abdullah M, Mboninyibuka D, Madili M. Making EmOC a reality-CARE's experiences in areas of high maternal mortality in Africa. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;92:308–319. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Alehagen S, Wijma K, Wijma B. Fear during labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:315–320. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080004315.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bagheri A, Masoodi-Alavi N, Abbaszade F. [Effective factors for choosing the delivery method among the pregnant women in Kashan] Feyz J. 2012;16:146–153. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shakeri M, Mazloumzade S, Mohamaian F. [Factors affecting the rate of cesarean section in Zanjan maternity hospitals in 2008] Zanjan Univ Med Sci J. 2012;20:98–104. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lee AS, Kirkman M. Disciplinary discourses: rates of cesarean section explained by medicine, midwifery, and feminism. Health Care Women Int. 2008;29:448–467. doi: 10.1080/07399330801949574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing‐Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.D'Orsi E, Chor D, Giffin K, Angulo-Tuesta A, Barbosa GP, Gama Ade S, et al. Factors associated with cesarean sections in a public hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública. 2006;22:2067–2078. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2006001000012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmoudi M. [Cesarean section in maternity hospitals in Tehran] Payesh. 2002;1:5–10. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mohammad Pour Asl A, Rostami F, Torabi SS. Prevalence of cesarean section and Its demographic correlates in Tabriz. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci Health Serv. 2006;28:101–106. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jamshidi Evanaki F, Khakbazan Z, Babaei G, Seyed Noori T. [Reasons of choosing Cesarean section as the delivery method by the pregnant women referred to healthtreatment centers in Rasht] J Hayat. 2004;10:50–60. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Spong CY, Dashe J. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd Ed. Mcgraw-hill; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Qarekhani P, Sadatian A. [Principals of obstetrics & gynecology] 5th Ed. Tehran: Noore-Danesh; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 13.ALI Mohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoudi M, Ramazanzadeh F. [The influence of maternal request on the elective cesarean section rate in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran] Payesh. 2003;2:133–139. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 14.Boskabadi H, Zakerihamidi M, Bagheri F. [Outcomes of vaginal delivery and cesarean in Mashhad Ghaem University Hospital] Tehran Univ Med J. 2014;71:807–815. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nasri A. [Fregueney of cesarean secation and the classifiction of its indication in shariati haspital from 2000] Hormozgan Univ Med Sci J. 2000;4:11–16. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shorten A, Chamberlain M, Shorten B, Kariminia A. Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Educ Counse. 2004;52:307–313. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00106-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Saeedi R, Ma'moori G, Ayati S, Rahmani Sh, Gholami Robat Sangi M. [Neonatal complications in cesarean sections and vaginal delivery] Sabzevar Univ Med Sci J. 2009;16:108–113. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dosa L. Caesarean section delivery, an increasingly popular option. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:1173. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Richardson DK, Corcoran JD, Escobar GJ, Lee SK. SNAP-II and SNAPPE-II: simplified newborn illness severity and mortality risk scores. J Pediatr. 2001;138:92–100. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2001.109608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wilmink FA, Hukkelhoven CW, Lunshof S, Mol BWJ, van der Post JA, Papatsonis DN. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 wk of gestation: a 7-year retrospective analysis of a national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:e1–250. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Quiroz LH, Chang H, Blomquist JL, Okoh YK, Handa VL. Scheduled cesarean delivery: maternal and neonatal risks in primiparous women in a community hospital setting. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26:271–277. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1103155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zahedpasha YA, Zeinalzadeh M, Taheri T, Baleghi MA. [Correlation between the mode of delivery with the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity] J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2008;10:30–36. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:439–442. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01150-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M, Asl Amin Abad R. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran: systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health. 2014;43:545–555. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Copas J, Shi JQ. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics. 2000;1:247–262. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Soleimanizadeh L, Soleimanizadeh F, Askarizadeh Mahani M, Zafarnia N, Javadi M. [Prevalence of cesarean section on BMI in the hospital of Bam, in the years 1385-1384] Qom Univ Med Sci J. 2010;3:49–54. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Azizi F. [cesarean delivery: shocking increase. research in medicine]. Research Med. 2007;31:191–193 (in Persian). [Google Scholar]
- 28.Davari M, Maracy M, Ghorashi Z, Mokhtari M. [The Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and the Prevalence of Elective Cesarean Section in Nulliparous Women in Niknafs Teaching Centre in Rafsanjan, Iran] Women's Health Bulletin. 2014;1:965. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dobson R. Cesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21% BMJ. 2001;323 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sharifi G, Fathian Z, Tirani M, Mahleki B. [Perspectives of pregnant women to cesarean delivery and normal according to behavioral intention mode] Razi J Med Sci. 2008;15:19–23. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 31.RahmatiNajarkolaei F, Zamani O, Dopeykar N, Eshraghi T, Mehdizadeh P. [Determinants of delivery type selection by using theory of planned behaviors (TPB)] J Urmia Nurs Midwif Facult. 2014;12:305–313. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 32.Anderson GM, Lomas J. Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies? Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132:253–256. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Singer A. Mandatory regular meetings of hospital staff would complement medical audit and revalidation. BMJ. 2000;320:1072–1078. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Nuttall C. Caesarean section controversy The caesarean culture of Brazil. BMJ. 2000;320:1074. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mohammadpourasl A, Asgharian P, Rostami F, AZIZI A, Akbari H. [Investigating the choice of delivery method type and its related factors in pregnant women in Maragheh] Knowledge and Health. 2009;4:36–39. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 36.Farzan A, Javaheri S. [Cesarean section and related factors in governmental and private hospitals of Isfahan] Health System Research J. 2010;6:79–85. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 37.Festin MR, Laopaiboon M, Pattanittum P, Ewens MR, Henderson-Smart DJ, Crowther CA. SEA-ORCHID Study Group Caesarean section in four South East Asian countries: reasons for rates associated care practices and health outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Karlström A, Rådestad I, Eriksson C, Rubertsson C, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. Cesarean section without medical reason, 1997 to 2006: a Swedish register study. Birth. 2010;37:11–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00373.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bernstein PS. Elective cesarean section: An acceptable alternative to vaginal delivery. Medscape Obstet Gynaecol. 2002:7. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ahmad Nia S, Delavar B, Eini Zinab H, Kazemipour S, Mehryar AH, Naghavi M. Caesarean section in the islamic republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. East Mediterr Health J. 2009;15:1389–1398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Murray SF. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ. 2000;321:1501–1505. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Karlström A, Engström-Olofsson R, Nystedt A, Thomas J, Hildingsson I. Swedish caregivers’ attitudes towards caesarean section on maternal request. Women Birth. 2009;22:57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2008.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Tatari F, Abedi P, Afshari P, Haghighizadeh MH. [Survey of the factors affecting cesarean section in Mashhad hospitals, Iran] J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2003;42:25–30. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Pourandokht A, Mohamadzadeh L, Haghayii H. Benefits and harms of vaginal delivery and unneeded cesarean section. Behvarz J. 2012;23:62–64. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bartlett EE. The contribution of school health education to community health promotion: what can we reasonably expect? Am J Public Health. 1981;71:1384–1391. doi: 10.2105/ajph.71.12.1384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Mobaraki A, Zadehebagheri Gh. [Prevalence of cesarean section and the related causes in Kohgiloieh and boyerahmad provinces in 1382] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2005;8:73–78. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 47.Naseh N, Khazaie T, Kianfar S, Dehghan R, Yoosefi S. [Prevalence of Cesarean and its complications in women referring to Vali-e-Asr hospital] Mod Care J. 2010;7:12–18. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 48.Foruzeshfard M, Validad E, Mirmohamadkhani M, Moradan S. [Type of anesthesia chosen by mothers for cesarean section in their first delivery and its related factors in selected hospitals in year 2012] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2013;15:1–8. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hantoushzadeh S, Shariat M, Rahimi Foroushani A, Ramezanzadeh F, Masoumi M. [Sexual satisfaction after child birth: vaginal versus elective cesarean delivery] Tehran Univ Med J. 2009;67:1–5. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 50.Gungor S, Baser I, Ceyhan S, Karasahin E, Acikel CH. Mode of delivery and subsequent long-term sexual function of primiparous women. Int J Impot Res. 2007;19:358–365. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Moqimi hanjani S, Mehdizadeh Turzan Z. [Comparison of sexual function after childbirth in primiparous women experiencing vaginal delivery and caesarian section in Karaj city] Q Horizon Med Sci. 2013;18:225–231. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Zanardo V, Simbi AK, Franzoi M, Solda G, Salvadori A, Trevisanuto D. Neonatal respiratory morbidity risk and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean delivery. Acta Pædiatr. 2004;93:643–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb02990.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Bowers SK, MacDonald HM, Shapiro ED. Prevention of iatrogenic neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: elective repeat cesarean section and spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;143:186–189. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(82)90653-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:101–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb09060.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Esmailpour N, Asgharnia M. [Early neonatal injuries in normal vaginal and cesarean deliveries] J Guilan Univ Med Sci. 2005;14:76–84. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Schmitz T, de Carné Carnavalet C, Azria E, Lopez E, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancy according to the planned mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:695–703. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318163c435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Liston FA, Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Jangaard KA. Neonatal outcomes with caesarean delivery at term. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93:F176–F182. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.112565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Badiee Sh, Ravanshad Y, Azarfar A, Dastfan F, Babayi S, Mirzayi N. [Survey of cesarean deliveries and their causes in hospitals affiliated to mashhad university of medical sciences, Iran] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2013;16:10–17. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 59.Seyyedzadeh Aghdam N, Davood Abadi M, Vakilian K. The effect of maternal overweight and obesity on the rate of cesarean section. Arak Med Uni Sci J. 2013;15:72–76. [Google Scholar]
- 60.Sharghi A, Kamran A, Sharifirad G. [Factors influencing delivery method selection in primiparous pregnant women referred to health centers in ardabil, Iran] Health Syst Res. 2011;7:364–372. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Dehghani SL, Mehrolhasani N, Rastad H, Ebrahimi M, Motamed Jahromi M. [Factors Influencing Cesarean Delivery in Women Visiting the Women's Pregnancy Clinic in Bam, Iran] J Health Dev. 2012;1:237–243. [Google Scholar]
- 62.Reza Soltani P, Hosseinjani A, Etebari S. [Causes of cesarean section performed in an educational health care center] J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2012;22:16–22. [Google Scholar]
- 63.Garmaroudi G, Eftekhar H, Batebi A. [Study of risk factors for cesarean section in pregnant women] Payesh. 2002;1:45–49. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 64.Fakhri M. Evaluation of maternal and neonatal complications in macrosomia. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 1999;9:32–38. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 65.Abedian Z, Nikpoor M, Mokhber N, Ebrahimzadeh S, Khani S. Investigate the relationship between type of delivery and quality of life after birth. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2010;13:47–53. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 66.Najar S, Afshari P, Saharkhiz N. [Investigate the relationship between type of delivery and respiratory disorders in term neonates born in teaching hospitals of Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences. ] Ilam Uni Med Sci J. 2005;15:56–61. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 67.Tavoli Z, Taee N, Safari M, Haji-mohammad R, Rastad H. [Gestational age and neonatal morbidity at the end of term pregnancy in cesarean delivery] Iran J Nurs. 2013;26:44–52. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 68.Qureshi Z, Esmailzadeh S. Natural childbirth complications with cesarean delivery in women with previous cesarean section. Kurdistan Uni Med Sci J. 2004;8:32–40. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 69.Yousofzadeh S, Akbarzadeh R, Eftekhari Yazdi M. [The study of vaginal birst after cesarean section (VBAC) and its effects on pregnancy outcome] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2005;8:43–50. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 70.Eftekhar T, Ghazizadeh Sh, Haji Baratali B, Shahir A, Roostaei N. The relationship between the prevalence of stress urinary incontinence in women after childbirth and delivery method Parr primed. Bimonthly J Shahed Univ. 2005;64:7–14. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 71.Moravedji Asl M, Kashanian M, Ahangari Shirazi A. The incidence of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants born during the first 24 hours of dexamethasone administration to mothers. Iran Uni Med Sci J. 2005;12:173–180. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 72.Ghasemi F. [Investigating the abundance of saesarean section and its reason in Yazd in 2009] JSSU. 2012;20:229–236 (inpersian). [Google Scholar]
- 73.Shakerian B. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in chaharmahal & bakhtiary, 2002. Shahrekord Uni of Med Sci J . 2004;6:63–69. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 74.Shahri P, Soleimani M, Sepandi M. [Investigating the Relationship between Mode of Delivery and Dysmenorrheal in 15-49 Year Old Women in Ahvaz] JSSU. 2013;21:118–126. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 75.Yavangi M, Sohrabi MR, Alishahi Tabriz A. [Effect of Iranian ministry of health protocols on cesarean section rate: a quasi-experimental study] J Res Health Sci. 2013;13:48–52. (in Persian) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Nasri Kh, Rafiei M, Pishgahi Z. [The relationship between fetal sex and complications of labor which end in cesarean delivery at Taleghani Hospital of Arak in 2009] Arak Med Univ J (AMUJ) 2011;14:81–87. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 77.Ranae F. [Reasons for choosing cesarean among women referred to bea’sat Hospital of Sanandaj (2004)] J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci. 2006;10:277–286. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 78.Roohi M, Alizadeh Charandabi SM. [Mothers' Problems Experienced During the First Year of Postpartum and Their Association with the Kind of Childbirth in Mahabad, Iran, 2011] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2012;15:28–37. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 79.Parashi S, Kashanian M, Niknafs F. [Evaluation of the relationship between the mode of first delivery and stress urinary incontinence after 1 year] Razi J Med Sci. 2009;15:47–53. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 80.Behdani R, Rezaei E. [The frequency of urinary stress incontinence after delivery in primiparous women and the related factors] Tehran Univ Med J. 2001;59:23–28. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 81.Sharifizad M, Khodakaram N, Jannesari S, Akbarzadeh A. [The outcomes of natural childbirth and C-section on the mother and infant's health in selected hospitals in Tehran] Horizon Med Sci. 2012;18:5–11. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 82.Baghdari N, Anbaran ZK, Mazloom SR, Golmakani N. [Comparison of women's sexual function after natural childbirth and cesarean section in women referring to the healthcare centers of Mashhad] Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2012;15:8–14. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 83.Ozgoli G, Dolatian M, Sheykhan Z, Valaei N. [Study of sexual function and satisfaction in women with vaginal delivery and cesarean referring to Health Center of Shahid Beheshti Medical University-2008] Pajoohande J. 2011;15:257–263. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 84.Heidary M, Mrqayy Khoi E, Velae N. [Investigating the Relationship between Mode of Delivery and postpartum sexual function] Nurs Midwif J. 2010;20:20–24. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 85.Movahed M, Enayat H, Ghaffarinasab E, Alborzi S, Mozafari R. [Related factors to choose cesarean rather than normal delivery among Shirazian pregnant women] J Fasa Univ Med Sci. 2012;2:78–83. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 86.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;20:1–9. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 87.Mo'tamedi B, Jtnqrbany M, Eftekhari N. [Cesarean prevalence and associated factors in Kerman] Gilan Univ Med Sci J. 2000;9:88–94. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 88.Moasheri BN, Sharifzadeh G, Soltanzadeh V, Khosravi Givshad Z, Rakhshany Zabol F. Relationship between fear of pain, fear of delivery and attitude towards cesarean section with preferred mode of delivery among pregnant women. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2015;18:8–16. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
- 89.Kolahi AA, Abolghasemi N, Ehdaeivand F. [The Views of Family Health Worker in the Subsidiary Health Centers of University on the Determinants of Cesarean Section without Medical Indication] Commun Health. 2016;3:289–298. (in Persian) [Google Scholar]