• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

中国妇女、家庭成员和卫生专业人员选择剖宫产的流行情况及原因:一项混合方法系统评价。

Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review.

机构信息

Global Health Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China.

School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS Med. 2018 Oct 16;15(10):e1002672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672. eCollection 2018 Oct.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672
PMID:30325928
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6191094/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

China has witnessed a rapid increase of cesarean section (CS) rates in recent years. Several non-clinical factors have been cited as contributing to this trend including maternal request and perceived convenience. We aimed to assess preferences for mode of delivery and reasons for preferences for CS in China to inform the development of future interventions to mitigate unnecessary CSs, which are those performed in the absence of medical indications.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and included longitudinal, cross-sectional, and qualitative studies in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that investigated preferences for mode of delivery among women and family members and health professionals, and the reasons underlying such preferences. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health Library, and one Chinese database (CNKI) using a combination of the key terms 'caesarean section', 'preference', 'choice', 'knowledge', 'attitude', 'culture', 'non-clinical factors', and 'health professionals-patient relations' between 1990 and 2018 without language restriction. Meta-analysis of quantitative studies and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were applied. We included 66 studies in this analysis: 47 quantitative and 19 qualitative. For the index pregnancy, the pooled proportions of preference for CS reported by women in longitudinal studies were 14% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 12%-17%) and 21% in late pregnancy (95% CI 15%-26%). In cross-sectional studies, the proportions were 17% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 14%-20%), 22% in late pregnancy (95% CI 18%-25%), and 30% postpartum (95% CI 19%-40%). Women's preferences for CS were found to rise as pregnancy progressed (preference change across longitudinal studies: mean difference 7%, 95% CI 1%-13%). One longitudinal study reported that the preference for CS among women's partners increased from 8% in late pregnancy to 17% in the immediate postpartum period. In addition, 18 quantitative studies revealed that some pregnant women, ranging from 4% to 34%, did not have a straightforward preference for a mode of delivery, even in late pregnancy. The qualitative meta-synthesis found that women's perceptions of CS as preferable were based on prioritising the baby's and woman's health and appeared to intensify through interactions with the health system. Women valued the convenience of bypassing labour because of fear of pain, antagonistic relations with providers, and beliefs of deteriorating quality of care during labour and vaginal birth, fostering the feeling that CS was the safest option. Health professionals' preference for CS was influenced by financial drivers and malpractice fears. This review has some limitations, including high heterogeneity (despite subgroup and sensitivity analysis) in the quantitative analysis, and the potential for over-reporting of women's preferences for CS in the qualitative synthesis (due to some included studies only including women who requested CS).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a minority of women expressing a preference for CS, individual, health system, and socio-cultural factors converge, contributing to a high CS rate in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In order to reduce unnecessary CSs, interventions need to address all these non-clinical factors and concerns.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRY

Prospero CRD42016036596.

摘要

背景

近年来,中国的剖宫产率迅速上升。有几个非临床因素被认为是导致这一趋势的原因,包括产妇的要求和认为的方便。我们旨在评估中国产妇对分娩方式的偏好以及对剖宫产偏好的原因,以便为未来减轻不必要的剖宫产提供信息,这些剖宫产是指在没有医学指征的情况下进行的剖宫产。

方法和发现

我们进行了一项混合方法系统评价,纳入了中国大陆、香港和台湾的纵向、横断面和定性研究,这些研究调查了女性和家庭成员以及卫生专业人员对分娩方式的偏好及其背后的原因。我们使用了“剖宫产”、“偏好”、“选择”、“知识”、“态度”、“文化”、“非临床因素”和“卫生专业人员-患者关系”等关键词,在 1990 年至 2018 年期间,在 MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、POPLINE、PsycINFO、全球卫生图书馆和一个中文数据库(CNKI)中进行了无语言限制的组合搜索。对定量研究进行了荟萃分析,对定性研究进行了荟萃综合分析。我们分析了 66 项研究:47 项定量研究和 19 项定性研究。对于索引妊娠,纵向研究中报告的女性对剖宫产的偏好比例为早期或中期妊娠 14%(95%CI 12%-17%),晚期妊娠 21%(95%CI 15%-26%)。横断面研究中,比例分别为早期或中期妊娠 17%(95%CI 14%-20%)、晚期妊娠 22%(95%CI 18%-25%)和产后 30%(95%CI 19%-40%)。随着妊娠的进展,女性对剖宫产的偏好被发现有所增加(纵向研究中偏好的变化:平均差异 7%,95%CI 1%-13%)。一项纵向研究报告称,女性伴侣对剖宫产的偏好从妊娠晚期的 8%增加到产后即刻的 17%。此外,18 项定量研究显示,一些孕妇(比例从 4%到 34%)即使在妊娠晚期也没有明确的分娩方式偏好。定性荟萃综合分析发现,女性认为剖宫产更可取的原因是优先考虑婴儿和女性的健康,并且似乎通过与卫生系统的互动而加剧。女性重视避免分娩的便利性,因为害怕疼痛、与提供者的对抗关系,以及对分娩和阴道分娩期间护理质量恶化的信念,这助长了剖宫产是最安全选择的感觉。卫生专业人员对剖宫产的偏好受到经济驱动因素和医疗事故担忧的影响。

结论

尽管少数女性对剖宫产表示偏好,但个人、卫生系统和社会文化因素的综合作用导致了中国大陆、香港和台湾剖宫产率的居高不下。为了减少不必要的剖宫产,干预措施需要解决所有这些非临床因素和问题。

系统评价注册

Prospero CRD42016036596。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/a47c8cfeb311/pmed.1002672.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/bc68bc5d4efe/pmed.1002672.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/10b82685244f/pmed.1002672.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/a47c8cfeb311/pmed.1002672.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/bc68bc5d4efe/pmed.1002672.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/10b82685244f/pmed.1002672.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fa/6191094/a47c8cfeb311/pmed.1002672.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in China: A mixed-methods systematic review.中国妇女、家庭成员和卫生专业人员选择剖宫产的流行情况及原因:一项混合方法系统评价。
PLoS Med. 2018 Oct 16;15(10):e1002672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672. eCollection 2018 Oct.
2
Prevalence of and reasons for women's, family members', and health professionals' preferences for cesarean section in Iran: a mixed-methods systematic review.伊朗妇女、家庭成员和卫生专业人员选择剖宫产的流行情况及原因:一项混合方法系统评价。
Reprod Health. 2021 Jan 2;18(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-01047-x.
3
Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences.女性更喜欢剖宫产吗?对其观点和经验的定性证据综合分析。
PLoS One. 2021 May 5;16(5):e0251072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251072. eCollection 2021.
4
Women's caesarean section preferences: A multicountry cross-sectional survey in low- and middle-income countries.妇女剖宫产偏好:中低收入国家的多国家横断面调查。
Midwifery. 2024 May;132:103979. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2024.103979. Epub 2024 Mar 22.
5
Cesarean section in Shanghai: women's or healthcare provider's preferences?上海的剖宫产:是产妇的偏好还是医疗服务提供者的偏好?
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Aug 22;14:285. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-285.
6
Pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and subsequent mode of birth - a six-country cohort study.孕妇对剖宫产及后续分娩方式的偏好——一项六国队列研究。
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Sep;37(3):75-83. doi: 10.1080/0167482X.2016.1181055.
7
"Because it eases my Childbirth Plan": a qualitative study on factors contributing to preferences for caesarean section in Thailand.“因为它让我的分娩计划变得轻松”:一项关于泰国剖宫产偏好因素的定性研究。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Apr 24;23(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05576-8.
8
Deciding on the mode of birth after a previous caesarean section - An online survey investigating women's preferences in Western Switzerland.既往剖宫产术后分娩方式的选择——一项调查瑞士西部女性偏好的在线调查
Midwifery. 2017 Jul;50:219-227. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.04.005. Epub 2017 Apr 21.
9
What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review.女性的分娩方式偏好及其原因是什么?系统范围综述。
Women Birth. 2020 Jul;33(4):323-333. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.005. Epub 2019 Oct 11.
10
Influencing factors associated with the mode of birth among childbearing women in Hunan Province: a cross-sectional study in China.湖南省育龄妇女分娩方式的相关影响因素:一项中国的横断面研究
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 May 16;16:108. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0897-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Women and clinicians' views, preferences and experiences of caesarean section and vaginal birth in India: a qualitative substudy of the 'Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction' (MOLI) trial.印度女性及临床医生对剖宫产和阴道分娩的看法、偏好与经历:“米索前列醇或缩宫素引产”(MOLI)试验的定性子研究
BMJ Glob Health. 2025 Sep 5;10(9):e018393. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018393.
2
Retrospective Analysis of Gut Microbiota and Metabolomic Profiles in Pregnant Women: Association with Cesarean Section Risk.孕妇肠道微生物群和代谢组学特征的回顾性分析:与剖宫产风险的关联
Int J Womens Health. 2025 Jun 12;17:1763-1770. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S526040. eCollection 2025.
3

本文引用的文献

1
What Drove the Cycles of Chinese Health System Reforms?是什么推动了中国卫生系统改革的循环?
Health Syst Reform. 2015 Jan 2;1(1):52-61. doi: 10.4161/23288604.2014.995005.
2
Factors associated with Chinese nulliparous women's choices of mode of delivery: A longitudinal study.与中国初产妇分娩方式选择相关的因素:一项纵向研究。
Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:42-48. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.013. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
3
A qualitative study of nulliparous women's decision making on mode of delivery under China's two-child policy.一项关于中国二孩政策下未生育女性分娩方式决策的定性研究。
Development and Validation of the China Dietary Inflammatory Index (CHINA-DII).
中国饮食炎症指数(CHINA-DII)的开发与验证
Nutrients. 2025 May 15;17(10):1687. doi: 10.3390/nu17101687.
4
Comparative efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on fear of childbirth for pregnant women: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.非药物干预对孕妇分娩恐惧的比较疗效:一项系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Front Psychol. 2025 Mar 12;16:1530311. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1530311. eCollection 2025.
5
Preference of mode of delivery and associated factors among mothers in East Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis.东非母亲的分娩方式偏好及相关因素:系统评价与荟萃分析
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Mar 3;25(1):232. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07287-8.
6
The Portrayal of Cesarean Section on Instagram: Mixed Methods Social Media Analysis.Instagram 上剖宫产的呈现:混合方法社交媒体分析。
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Sep 6;8:e46531. doi: 10.2196/46531.
7
Determinants and willingness to practice obstetric analgesia among women attending antenatal clinic at Dr. Bogalech Gebre Memorial General Hospital Central Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.在埃塞俄比亚中部博加勒赫·格布雷纪念综合医院产前门诊就诊的妇女中,产科镇痛的决定因素和实施意愿:一项横断面研究。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Jul 10;24(1):470. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06674-x.
8
Rising caesarean section rates and factors affecting women's decision-making about mode of birth in Indonesia: a longitudinal qualitative study.剖宫产率上升及影响印度尼西亚妇女分娩方式选择的因素:一项纵向定性研究。
BMJ Glob Health. 2024 Jun 18;9(6):e014602. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014602.
9
Women's preference for a vaginal birth in Brazilian private hospitals: effects of a quality improvement project.巴西私立医院中女性对阴道分娩的偏好:一项质量改进项目的效果。
Reprod Health. 2024 Mar 28;20(Suppl 2):188. doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01771-8.
10
Preferences for childbirth delivery and pain relief methods among pregnant women in Vietnam.越南孕妇对分娩方式及疼痛缓解方法的偏好
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jan 30;11:1290232. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1290232. eCollection 2024.
Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.007. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
4
Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births.2012年至2016年中国独生子女政策放宽与剖宫产率及出生结局的趋势:对近700万例医疗机构分娩的观察性研究
BMJ. 2018 Mar 5;360:k817. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k817.
5
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估——第 2 部分:如何对信心进行全面的 CERQual 评估并创建定性研究结果总结表。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2.
6
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估-第 4 部分:如何评估一致性。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8.
7
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估-第 6 篇:如何评估数据的相关性。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6.
8
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估:简介系列。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.
9
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估-第 3 部分:如何评估方法学局限性。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9.
10
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data.应用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综合研究结果进行评估 - 第 5 部分:如何评估数据充分性。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7.