“It's All the Rage These Days”: University Students' Attitudes Toward Vaginal and Cesarean Birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At 30 percent, British Columbia has the highest cesarean section rate in Canada. Little is known about the childbirth views and birthing preferences of college-aged women and men. The objectives of this study were to document (a) the prevalence of cesarean versus vaginal delivery as the preferred mode of delivery among nonpregnant university students without a history of childbirth, (b) the reasons for reported childbirth preferences, and (c) confidence in vaginal birth as a predictor of childbirth preference. METHODS: A cohort of 3,680 male and female university students without a history of childbirth participated in an online survey of childbirth preferences. The study used a mixed methods approach (quantitative thematic analysis and logistic regression modeling). Prevalence of, and reasons for, preferred mode of delivery were analyzed separately for male and female respondents. RESULTS: Most men and women responded that they preferred vaginal delivery, with 9 percent stating a preference for cesarean delivery. Reasons for preferred mode of delivery were similar for men and women. For women, confidence in vaginal birth emerged as a significant predictor of childbirth preference. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that a preference for cesarean section is linked to fear of childbirth and driven by low confidence in vaginal birth. Educational strategies targeting university-aged men and women may be helpful in alleviating fears of vaginal birth and providing evidence-based information about different birth options.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".