Knowledge, attitude, and practice of obstetricians towards vaginal birth after caesarean in Egypt

References

• Abdel-Tawab N, Oraby D, Hassanein N, El-Nakib S. 2018. Cesarean section deliveries in Egypt: trends, practices, perceptions, and cost. Egypt: The Population Council, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2010. ACOG practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 116(Pt 1):450–463.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barger MK, Weiss J, Nannini A, Werler M, Heeren T, Stubblefield PG. 2011. Risk factors for uterine rupture among women who attempt a vaginal birth after a previous cesarean: a case-control study. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine 56:313–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Peipert JF, Stevens EJ, Macones GA. 2007. Does a maximum dose of oxytocin affect risk for uterine rupture in candidates for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:495.e1–495.e5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill AG, Waterman BM, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Allsworth JE, Evanoff B, et al. 2008. Higher maximum doses of oxytocin are associated with an unacceptably high risk for uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:32.e1–32.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson B, Trapp RG. 2004. Basic and clinical biostatistics. 4th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd J, Crowther CA. 2003. Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: A survey of practice in Australia and New Zealand. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 43:226–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunphy BC, Cantwell R, Bourke S, Fleming M, Smith B, Joseph KS, et al. 2010. Cognitive elements in clinical decision-making: toward a cognitive model for medical education and understanding. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15:229–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrashy A, Kassab A, Nada A, Saleh WF, Soliman A. 2011. Cesarean section in a university and general tertiary hospitals in Cairo; Egypt; rates, indications and limits. KAJOG 2:20–26.
   Google Scholar
• El-Zanaty F, Way AA. Egypt demographic and health survey. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Health and Population [Arab Republic of Egypt], National Population Council [Arab Republic of Egypt], El-Zanaty and Associates, and ORC Macro. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• EURO-PERISTAT. 2008. European perinatal health report. Paris [cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-healthreport2004.html
   Google Scholar
• Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, et al. 2010. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Report/Technology Assessment (Full Report) 191:1–397.
   Google Scholar
• Health and Social Care Information Centre. 2013. NHS Maternity Statistics – England, April 2012 to March 2013: Provider level analysis. Leeds: HSCIC [cited 2015 Mar 18]. Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB12744
   Google Scholar
• Hehir MP, Fitzpatrick M, Cassidy M, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. 2014. Are women having a vaginal birth after a previous caesarean delivery at increased risk of anal sphincter injury? Britisah Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 121:1515–1520.
   Google Scholar
• Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, Te C, Karrison T, Ismail MA. 2001. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 184:1365–1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadoon B. 2019. Analysis of the caesarean section rate using the 10-Group Robson classification at Benha University Hospital, Egypt. Women and Birth 33(2):e105–e110.
   Google Scholar
• Joliffe IT. 1996. Principal-components analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW, et al. 2005. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193:1016–1023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren I, Healy P, Carroll M, Begley C, Matterne A, Gross MM, et al. 2016. Clinicians' views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 16:350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, et al. 2007. Births: final data for 2005. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 56:1–103. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/nvsr/nvsr.htm
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2015. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. London: RCOG.
   Google Scholar
• Schoorel EN, Vankan E, Scheepers HC, Augustijn BC, Dirksen CD, de Koning M, et al. 2014. Involving women in personalised decision-making on mode of delivery after caesarean section: the development and pilot testing of a patient decision aid. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 121:202–209.
   Google Scholar
• Shaaban MM, Sayed Ahmed W, Khadr Z, El-Sayed HF. 2012. Obstetricians’ perspective towards cesarean section delivery based on professional level: experience from Egypt. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 286:317–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yee LM, Liu LY, Grobman WA. 2015. Relationship between obstetricians’ cognitive and affective traits and delivery outcomes among women with a prior cesarean. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 213:x.ex–x.ex.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J. 2009. Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 116:1069–1078.
   Google Scholar