Fear of Childbirth and Preference for Cesarean Delivery Among Young American Women Before Childbirth: A Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fear of birth and mode of delivery preferences are similar among pregnant and nonpregnant women, suggesting that attitudes toward birth are formed in young adulthood or earlier. Understanding why some young women fear birth and prefer obstetric interventions can inform public health initiatives aimed at reducing fear and promoting birth as a normal life event. METHODS: We conducted an online survey with 752 American nulliparous young women to assess their preferences and attitudes toward childbirth. We identified explanatory variables associated with reported fear of childbirth and cesarean delivery (CD) preferences. RESULTS: A preference for CD was reported by 14 percent of young women and 27 percent had scores indicating elevated fear of birth. Fear of birth increased the likelihood of cesarean preference (adjusted relative risk (ARR) 3.84 [95% CI 2.49-5.95]) as did a family history of CD (ARR 1.65 [95% CI 1.13-2.42]). The likelihood of reporting elevated childbirth fear was increased among young women who reported concerns about the physical changes pregnancy and birth have on women's bodies (ARR 2.04 [95% CI 1.50-2.78]). Young women who reported a high degree of confidence in their knowledge about childbirth were significantly less likely to report childbirth fear (ARR 0.61 [95% CI 0.42-0.87]). Access to childbirth information was also associated with a decreased likelihood of fear of birth (ARR 0.75 [95% CI 0.59-0.95]). CONCLUSIONS: Young women reporting high levels of childbirth fear are nearly four times more likely to prefer a CD. Specific fears, such as worries over the influence of pregnancy and birth on the female body, need to be addressed before pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".