Socio-cultural factors, gender roles and religious ideologies contributing to Caesarian-section refusal in Nigeria

Nnanna U Ugwu, Bregje de Kok, Nnanna U Ugwu, Bregje de Kok

Abstract

Background: The death of women from pregnancy-related causes is a serious challenge that international development initiatives, including the Millennium Development Goals, have been trying to redress for decades. The majority of these pregnancy-related deaths occur in developing countries especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. The provision of Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC), including Caesarean section (CS) has been identified as one of the key ingredients necessary for the reduction of high maternal mortality ratios. However, it appears that creating access to EmOC facilities is not all that is required to reduce maternal mortality: socio-cultural issues in Sub-Saharan countries including Nigeria seem to deter women from accepting CS. This study seeks to explore some of the socio-cultural concerns that reinforce delays and non-acceptance of CS in a Nigerian community.

Methods: This is a mixed method study that combined both qualitative and quantitative strategies of enquiry. The hospital's delivery records from 2006-2010 provided data for quantitative analysis. This quantitative data was supplemented with prospective data collected during one month. Semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGD) and informal observations served as the sources of data on the qualitative end.

Results: In total, 22% of maternity clients refused CS and more than 90% of the CSs in the focal hospital were emergencies which may indicate late arrival at the hospital after seeking assistance elsewhere. The qualitative analysis reveals that socio-cultural meanings informed by gender and religious ideologies, the relational consequences of having a C-section, and the role of alternative providers are some key factors which influence when, where and whether women will accept C-section or not.

Conclusion: There is need to find means of facilitating necessary CS by addressing the prevailing socio-cultural norms and expectations that hinder its acceptance. Engaging and guiding alternative providers (traditional birth attendants and faith healers) who wield much power in their communities, will be important to minimize delays and improve cultural acceptability of CS.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kleinman’s Explanatory Model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schematic representation of the study design

References

    1. WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank . Trends in maternal mortality: 2013 estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
    1. Ronsmans C, Graham W. J. Maternal mortality: who, when, where, and why. The Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1189–1200. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69380-X.
    1. UNICEF. WHO . Countdown to 2015. Fulfilling the Health Agenda for Women and Children: The 2014 Report. Geneva: UNICEF and WHO; 2014.
    1. United Nations. Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals. 2014. . Accessed 24 April 2015.
    1. World Health Organisation. Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care: a handbook. 2009. Accessed 13 February 2012.
    1. Dumont A, de Bernis L, Bouvier-Colle M, Breart G. Caesarean section rate for maternal indication in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. The Lancet. 2001;358(9290):1328–1333. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06414-5.
    1. Abiodun MO, Ijaiya MA, Aboyeji PA. Awareness and Knowledge of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV among Pregnant Women. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(7):758–763.
    1. Dolea C, Abou Zahr C. Global burden of obstructed Labour. World Health Organisation. 2003. 10 July 2012.
    1. Geidam AD, Audu BA, Kawuwa BM, Obed JY. Rising trend and indications of caesarean section at the university of Maiduguri teaching hospital, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med. 2009;8(2):127–132. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.56242.
    1. Igberase GO, Ebeigbe PN, Andrew BO. High caesarean section rate: A ten-year experience in a tertiary hospital in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract. 2009;12:294–297.
    1. National Population Commission . Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2013. Maryland: NPC Nigeria; 2014.
    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x.
    1. Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA, França GV, Victora CG, Barros AJ, Ronsmans C. Trends in caesarean delivery by country and wealth quintile: cross-sectionalsurveys in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(12):914–922. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.117598.
    1. De Brouwere V, Dubourg D, Richard F, Lerberghe W. Need for caesarean sections in west Africa [Letter] The Lancet. 2002;359:974–75. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07993-X.
    1. Okonofua F. Optimising caesarean-section rates in West Africa. The Lancet. 2001;358:1289. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06456-X.
    1. Onankpa B, Ekele B. Fetal Outcome Following Caesarean Section in a University Teaching Hospital. J Natl Med Educ. 2009;101(6):578–581.
    1. Oladapo OT, Lamina MA, Sule-Odu AO. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with elective caesarean delivery at a university hospital in Nigeria. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47(2):110–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00695.x.
    1. Shah A, Fawole B, M'Imunya JM, Amokrane F, Nafiou I, Wolomby J, Mugerwa K, Neves I, Nguti R, Kublickas M, Mathai M. Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in J GynecolObstet. 2009;1–7
    1. Thaddeus S, Maine D. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1091–1110. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90226-7.
    1. Awoyinka BS, Ayinde OA, Omigbodun AO. Acceptability of caesarean delivery to antenatal patients in southwest Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26(3):208–210. doi: 10.1080/01443610500508311.
    1. Aziken M, Omoaghoja L, Okonofua F. Perceptions and attitudes of pregnant women towards caesarean section in urban Nigeria. Acta Obstetriciaet Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2007;86(1):42–47. doi: 10.1080/00016340600994950.
    1. Chigbu CO, Iloabachie GC. The burden of caesarean section refusal in a developing country setting. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114(10):1261–1265. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01440.x.
    1. Sunday-Adeoye I, Kalu CA. Pregnant Nigerian women’s view of caesarean section. J Clin Pract. 2011;14(3):276–279.
    1. Chigbu CO, Ezeome IV, Iloabachie GC. Caesarean section on request in a developing country. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;97:54–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.09.032.
    1. Kleinman A. Concepts and a model for the comparison of medical systems as cultural systems. Soc Sci Med. 1978;12:85–93. doi: 10.1016/0160-8002(78)90011-4.
    1. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, Illness, and Care:Clinical Lessons From Anthropologic and Cross-Cultural Research. Ann Intern Med. 2006;88:251–258. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-88-2-251.
    1. Davis-Floyd RE. The technocratic body: American childbirth as cultural expression. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(8):1125–1140. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90228-3.
    1. Obermeyer CM. Risk, uncertainty and agency: Culture and safe motherhood in Morocco. Med Anthropol. 2000;19:2.
    1. Moser CON. Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Needs. World Dev. 1989;17(11):1799–1825. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(89)90201-5.
    1. March C, Smyth I, Mukhopadhyay M. A guide to gender-analysis frameworks. 3. London: Oxfam GB; 2005.
    1. Lorber J. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale: Yale University Press; 1994.
    1. British Council Nigeria. Gender in Nigeria. 2nd ed. 2012. Accessed 12 Dec 2012.
    1. National human development report. National report. 2004. en/ reports/nationalreports/ africa/ nigeria/ nigeria_2004_en.pdf Accessed 12 Dec 2012.
    1. Okojie CE. Gender inequalities of health in the third world. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(9):1237–1247. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90356-5.
    1. Nwogu-Ikojo EE, Okafor II, Ezegwui HU. Multiple antenatal bookings among pregnant women in Enugu, Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(3):244–247. doi: 10.3109/01443610903383382.
    1. Sunday-Adeoye I, Ogbonnaya LU, Umeorah OUJ, Asiegbu O. Concurrent Use of Multiple Antenatal Care Providers by Women Utilizing Free Antenatal Care at Ebonyi State University Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki. Afr J Reprod Health. 2005;9(2):101–106. doi: 10.2307/3583466.
    1. Abioye-Kuteyi EA, Elias SO, Familusi AF, Fakunle A, Akinfolayan K. The role of traditional birth attendants in Atakumosa, Nigeria. Perspect Public Health. 2001;121(2):119–124.
    1. Ezechi OC, Fasubaa OB, Kalu BEK, Nwokoro CA, Obiesie LO. Caesarean Delivery: Why the Aversion? Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;21(2):164–167.
    1. Etuk SJ, Itam IH, Asuquo EE. Role of the spiritual churches in antenatal clinic default in Calabar, Nigeria. East Afr Med J. 1999;76(11):639–43.
    1. Udoma EJ, Ekanem AD, Abasiattai AM, Bassey EA. Reasons for preference of delivery in spiritual churchbased clinics by women of south-south Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract. 2008;11(2):100–103.
    1. Olusanya BO, Alakija OP, Inem VA. Non-Uptake of facility-based Maternity services in an inner-city community in Lagos, Nigeria: an observational study. J Biosoc Sci. 2010;42:341–358. doi: 10.1017/S0021932009990526.
    1. Sibley L, Sipe T. Transition to Skilled Birth Attendance: Is There a Future Role for Trained Traditional Birth Attendants? J Health Popul Nutr. 2006;24(4):472–478.
    1. Madhivanan P, Kumar BN, Adamson P, Krupp K. Traditional birth attendants lack basic information on HIV and safe delivery practices in rural Mysore, India. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:570. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-570.
    1. Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 3. London: Sage; 2009.
    1. Bloor M, Frankland M, Thomas K. Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage; 2001.
    1. Bryman A. Social Research Methods. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
    1. Kielmann K, Cataldo F, Seeley J. Introduction to Qualitative research Methodology. 2011. 3 March 2012.
    1. Storeng KT, Baggaley R, Ganaba R, Ouattara F, Akoum MS, Filippi V. Paying the price: The cost and consequences of emergency obstetric care in Burkina Faso. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(3):545–57. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.10.001.
    1. Mumtaz Z, Salway S. Gender, pregnancy and uptake of antenatal care services in Pakistan. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;29(1):1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00519.x.
    1. Brunson J. Confronting maternal mortality, controlling birth in Nepal: The gendered politics of receiving biomedical care at birth. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(10):1719–1727. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.013.
    1. Jordan B. Birth in four cultures. A cross cultural examination of childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden and the United States. 4. Prospect Highs, III: Waveland Press; 1993.
    1. Adageba RK, Danso KA, Adusu-Dunkor A, Ankobea-Kokroe F. Awareness and perceptions of and attitudes towards caesarean delivery among antenatal clients. Ghana Med J. 2008;42(4):137–140.
    1. Freire P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum; 1970.
    1. Abiodun IA, Onwudiegwu U, Akintayo A. Reshaping maternal services in Nigeria: any need for spiritual care? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:196. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-196.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe