Exploring barriers and facilitators of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), awareness, and preferences among females in Western Saudi Arabia.

IF 1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-13 DOI:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_946_24
Daniyah Aloufi, Omar Saggaf, Zainab Ali Alkhalifah, Hassan Alalawi, Nadia Alhazmi
{"title":"Exploring barriers and facilitators of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), awareness, and preferences among females in Western Saudi Arabia.","authors":"Daniyah Aloufi, Omar Saggaf, Zainab Ali Alkhalifah, Hassan Alalawi, Nadia Alhazmi","doi":"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_946_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women with a history of previous Cesarean Sections (CS) are faced with two choices during their pregnancy: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) or Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery (ERCD). VBAC refers to vaginal delivery in women who have previously undergone a CS.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite limited studies on VBAC in Saudi Arabia, this research aims to assess the knowledge and awareness of Saudi women regarding VBAC.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted among adult females in Western Saudi Arabia utilizing a convenient snowball sampling technique. The total number of participants was 901 females. The participants completed a self-administered questionnaire, which covered general information, knowledge about VBAC, and factors influencing their decision. Statistical analysis employed Chi-squared, Independent T-Test, and ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings revealed that 67.5% of participants had inadequate knowledge about VBAC. Only 45.6% of participants were familiar with the term VBAC. The primary reason for choosing CS over VBAC was medical necessity, as reported by 36.3% of participants. The most common reasons for rejecting VBAC were fear for their child's safety and the fact that a CS was recommended, both reported by 35.1%. The lowest reported reason was external interference from family or spouses, at 10.5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the majority of our sample consisted of highly educated women, most exhibited poor knowledge regarding VBAC. Therefore, raising awareness about VBAC, especially through healthcare professionals and their clinics, is essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":15856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"139-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11844971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_946_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Women with a history of previous Cesarean Sections (CS) are faced with two choices during their pregnancy: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) or Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery (ERCD). VBAC refers to vaginal delivery in women who have previously undergone a CS.

Objectives: Despite limited studies on VBAC in Saudi Arabia, this research aims to assess the knowledge and awareness of Saudi women regarding VBAC.

Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted among adult females in Western Saudi Arabia utilizing a convenient snowball sampling technique. The total number of participants was 901 females. The participants completed a self-administered questionnaire, which covered general information, knowledge about VBAC, and factors influencing their decision. Statistical analysis employed Chi-squared, Independent T-Test, and ANOVA.

Results: Our findings revealed that 67.5% of participants had inadequate knowledge about VBAC. Only 45.6% of participants were familiar with the term VBAC. The primary reason for choosing CS over VBAC was medical necessity, as reported by 36.3% of participants. The most common reasons for rejecting VBAC were fear for their child's safety and the fact that a CS was recommended, both reported by 35.1%. The lowest reported reason was external interference from family or spouses, at 10.5%.

Conclusion: Although the majority of our sample consisted of highly educated women, most exhibited poor knowledge regarding VBAC. Therefore, raising awareness about VBAC, especially through healthcare professionals and their clinics, is essential.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索沙特阿拉伯西部女性剖宫产后阴道分娩的障碍和促进因素、意识和偏好。
背景:有剖宫产史(CS)的妇女在怀孕期间面临两种选择:阴道分娩后剖宫产(VBAC)或选择性重复剖宫产(ERCD)。VBAC指的是以前接受过CS的妇女的阴道分娩。目的:尽管沙特阿拉伯对VBAC的研究有限,但本研究旨在评估沙特妇女对VBAC的知识和意识。方法:这项横断面研究是在沙特阿拉伯西部的成年女性中进行的,利用方便的雪球抽样技术。参与者总数为901名女性。参与者完成了一份自我管理的问卷,包括一般信息、VBAC知识和影响他们决定的因素。统计分析采用卡方、独立t检验和方差分析。结果:67.5%的参与者对VBAC的认知不足。只有45.6%的参与者熟悉VBAC这个术语。36.3%的参与者报告说,选择CS而不是VBAC的主要原因是医疗需要。拒绝VBAC最常见的原因是担心孩子的安全,以及建议进行CS,两者都占35.1%。最低的原因是来自家庭或配偶的外部干扰,占10.5%。结论:虽然我们的大多数样本由受过高等教育的女性组成,但大多数人对VBAC的了解都很差。因此,提高对VBAC的认识至关重要,尤其是通过医疗保健专业人员及其诊所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
7.10%
发文量
884
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a tribal-state of India: A cross-sectional study. Sensitivity and resistance pattern of uropathogens causing urinary tract infections among adults at a teaching hospital in South India - A retrospective analysis. Determinants of quality of life among urban poor elderly residing in a town of South-east district of National Capital Region: A cross-sectional study. Seroprevalence of SARS CoV 2 IgG in pandemic frontline healthcare workers. Decreasing trend of nutritional anemia in anemic pregnant mothers in hospital based study in Meghalaya.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1