Keywords
Decision
Labor obstetric
Parturition
Cesarean section
Obstetric violence
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the exercise of autonomy in not choosing the route of birth among pregnant women. Methods: Qualitative study carried out using four focus groups, with 31 primiparous and non-primiparous pregnant women in a municipality in Minas Gerais. We carried out lexical analysis using Word Cloud and Similitude Tree. Results: Women do not feel participatory or respected in choosing the birth route and their decisions are not based on the exercise of autonomy. Most women have a preference for one of the birth methods, however, their “choices” come up against professional imposition, the lack of availability to monitor labor and delivery, the fear of having a bad experience and the fallacious indications for a cesarean section. Because they have no choice, women opt for a “cesarean section on request” in order to escape obstetric violence. There is “limited autonomy”, exercised without prior knowledge of the risks and benefits of each way of being born. Conclusion: From the perspective of parturient women, the way of birth is determined by the professionals who attend the birth and women have not exercised autonomy in this decision. There is a setback in the recognition of women's rights that makes it impossible to fully exercise autonomy in labor and birth.
References
BARBOUR R. Grupos focais. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2009; 304.
BARROS FC, et al. Cesarean sections in Brazil: will they ever stop increasing? Pan American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 38(3): 217–25.
BEAUCHAMP TL e Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016; 7: 412.
BENUTE GRG, et al. Preferência pela via de parto: uma comparação entre gestantes nulíparas e primíparas. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2013; 35(6): 281-285.
BRILHANTE MAA e FAUSTINO WM. Motherhood and Spirituality: The experience of women who have chosen to give birth at home. Brazilian Journal of Development. 2021; 7(1): 4018-4034.
COXON K, et al. What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 103.
CROWTHER S e HALL J. Spirituality and spiritual care in and around childbirth. Women Birth. 2015 Jun; 28(2): 173-8.
CROWTHER AS, et al. Spirituality and childbirth: An international virtual co-operative inquiry. Women and Birth. 2021; 34(2): 135-145.
DEMONTIS R, et al. Cesarean section without clinical indication versus vaginal delivery as a paradigmatic model in the discourse of medical setting decisions. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2011; 24(12): 1470-5.
DOMINGUES RMSM, et al. Processo de decisão pelo tipo de parto no Brasil: da preferência inicial das mulheres à via de parto final. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2014; 30(1): 101-116.
DUDGEON MR e INHORN MC. Men’s influences on women’s reproductive health: medical anthropological perspectives. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 59: 1379–95.
FREITAS PF, et al. Social inequalities in cesarean section rates in primiparal, Southern Brazil. Revista de Saúde Publica. 2005; 39(5): 761-7.
GOUTAUDIER N, et al. Childbirth as a forthcoming traumatic event: pretraumatic stress disorder during pregnancy and its psychological correlates. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 2019; 37(1): 44-55.
GUI R. Grupo focal em pesquisa qualitative aplicada: intersubjetividade e construção de sentido. Revista Psicologia, Organização e Trabalho. 2003; 3(1)1: 135-160.
JUSTO AM e CAMARGO BV. IRAMUTEQ: um software gratuito para análise de dados textuais. Temas em Psicologia. 2013; 21(2): 513-518.
KIETPEERAKOOL C, et al. Pregnancy outcomes of women with previous caesarean sections: Secondary analysis of World Health Organization Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 9748.
KOTTWITZ F, et al. Route of birth delivery preferred by mothers and their motivations. Escola Anna Nery. 2018; 22(1): 20170013.
LEGUIZAMON JT, et al. Choice of route of childbirth: expectation of pregnant women and obstetricians. Revista Bioética. 2013; 21(3): 509-517.
LEWIS S, et al. The role of husbands in maternal health and safe childbirth in rural Nepal: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15: 162.
MASCARELLO KC, et al. Repeat cesarean section in subsequent gestation of women from a birth cohort in Brazil. Reprod Health. 2017; 14: 102.
MELLO RSF, et al. Fear of childbirth among pregnant women. Femina. 2021; 49(2): 121-8.
PATAH LEM e MALIK AM. Modelos de assistência ao parto e taxa de cesárea em diferentes países. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2011; 45(1): 185-194.
PORTO D e GARRAFA V. Bioética de intervenção: considerações sobre a economia de mercado. Bioética. 2005; 13(1): 111-23.
RISCADO LC, et al. A decisão pela via de parto no Brasil: temas e tendências na produção da saúde coletiva. Texto Contexto Enfermagem. 2016; 25(1): 3570014.
ROCHA NFF e FERREIRA J. The choice of the mode of delivery and the autonomy of women in Brazil: an integrative review. Saúde em Debate. 2020; 44(125): 556-568.
RUSSO J, et al. Escalando vulcões: a releitura da dor no parto humanizado. Mana. 2019; 25(2): 519-55.
SANTOS RAA, et al. Trajetória de humanização do parto no Brasil a partir de uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Cadernos de Cultura e Ciência. 2015; 13(2): 76-89.
SAPKOTA S, et al. In the Nepalese context, can a husband’s attendance during childbirth help his wife feel more in control of labour? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012; 12: 49.
SINGH A e RAM F. Men’s involvement during pregnancy and childbirth: evidence from Rural Ahmadnagar, India. Popul Rev. 2009; 48: 83–102.
SLADE P, et al. Establishing a valid construct of fear of childbirth: findings from in-depth interviews with women and midwives. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19: 96.
TRAD LB. Grupos focais: conceitos, procedimentos e reflexões baseadas em experiências com o uso da técnica em pesquisas de saúde. Physis: Revista de Saúde Coletiva. 2009; 19(3): 777-796.
VALE LD, et al. Preference and factors associated with the type of delivery among new mothers in a public maternity hospital. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem. 2015; 36(3): 86-92.
VEDAM S, et al. The Giving Voice to Mothers study: inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States. Reprod Health. 2019; 16: 77.
WIGERT H, et al. Women’s experiences of fear of childbirth: a metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2020; 15(1): 1704484.
WHO. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Recommendations non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. 2018. Disponível em: https ://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550338. Acessado em: 09 de julho de 2024.
WHO. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Every effort should be made to provide caesarean sections to women in need, rather than striving to achieve a specific rate. 2015.
Disponível em: https ://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf. Acessado em: 09 de julho de 2024.
WHO. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World bank group and the United Nations population division. 2019. Disponível em: https ://www.unfpa.org/featured-publication/trends-maternal-mortality-2000-2017. Acessado em: 09 de julho de 2024.
YEE LM, et al. Mode of delivery preferences in a diverse population of pregnant women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015; 212(3): 3771-24.