Clark, SL, Belfort, MA, Dildy, GA, et al. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:36.e1–36.e5; discussion 91–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Liu, S, Liston, RM, Joseph, KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ 2007;176:455–60Google ScholarPubMed

Glantz, J. Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing less. Birth 2012;39:286–90Google Scholar

Gregory, KD, Jackson, S, Korst, L, Fridman, M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012;29:7–18Google ScholarPubMed

Hamilton, BE, Hoyert, DL, Martin, JA, Strobino, DM, Guyer, B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010–2011. Pediatrics 2013;131:548–58Google Scholar

World Health Organisation. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7Google Scholar

Gibbons, L, Belizán, JM, Lauer, JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report 2010; Background Paper 30Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar

Nelson, KB. Can we prevent cerebral palsy? N Engl J Med 2003;349:1765–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hankins, GD, Speer, M. Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:628–36Google Scholar

NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Focus on: Caesarean section 2012. http://www.institute.nhs.ukGoogle Scholar

Guise, JM, Eden, K, Emeis, C, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191. AHRQ Publication No. 10–E003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perinatal Registration The Netherlands 2013.www.perinatreg.nlGoogle Scholar

Barber, EL, Lundsberg, LS, Belanger, K, et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:29–38Google Scholar

Hendrix, NW, Chaucan, SP. Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing. Obstet Gynecol N Am 2005;32:273–86Google ScholarPubMed

ACOG. Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates: Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000Google Scholar

RCOG. Operative Vaginal Delivery. Green-top Guideline No. 26. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2011Google Scholar

Stephenson, PA, Bakoula, C, Hemminki, E, et al. Patterns of use of obstetrical interventions in 12 countries. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1993;7:45–54Google Scholar

Keriakos, R, Sugumar, S, Hilal, N. Instrumental vaginal delivery – back to basics. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;33:781–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

O’Mahony, F, Settatree, R, Platt, C, Johanson, R. Review of singleton fetal and neonatal deaths associated with cranial trauma and cephalic delivery during a national intrapartum-related confidential enquiry. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:619–26Google Scholar

Wegner, EK, Bernstein, IM. Operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014; www.uptodate.comGoogle Scholar

Main, DM, Main, EK, Moore, DH 2nd. The relationship between maternal age and uterine dysfunction as a continuous effect throughout reproductive life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:258–9Google Scholar

Liu, S, Rusen, ID, Joseph, KS, et al. Recent trends in caesarean delivery rates and indications for caesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004;26:735–42Google Scholar

Ecker, JL, Chen, KT, Cohen, AP, Riley, LE, Lieberman, ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:883–7Google Scholar

Jensen, H, Agger, AO, Rasmussen, KL. The influence of prepregnancy body mass index on labor complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:799–802Google Scholar

Usha, Kiran TS, Hemmadi, S, Bethel, J, Evans, J. Outcome of pregnancy in a woman with an increased body mass index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:768–72Google Scholar

Cedergren, MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:219–24Google Scholar

Declercq, E, Menacker, F, MacDorman, M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991–2002. Am J Public Health 2006;96:867–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Declercq, E, Menacker, F, MacDorman, M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991–2001: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J 2005;330:71–2Google Scholar

Heffner, LJ, Elkin, E, Fretts, RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:287–93Google ScholarPubMed

Stramrood, CA, Paarlberg, KM, Huis In ‘t Veld, EM, et al. Posttraumatic stress following childbirth in homelike- and hospital settings. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2011;32:88–97Google Scholar

Boorman, RJ. Childbirth and criteria for traumatic events. Midwifery 2014;30:255–61Google Scholar

Alcorn, KL, O’Donovan, A, Patrick, JC, Creedy, D, Devilly, GJ. A prospective longitudinal study of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from childbirth events. Psychol Med 2010;40:1849–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Soderquist, J, Wijma, B, Thorbert, G, Wijma, K. Risk factors in pregnancy for post-traumatic stress and depression after childbirth. BJOG 2009;116:672–80Google Scholar

White, T, Matthey, S, Boyd, K, Barnett, B. Postnatal depression and post-traumatic stress after childbirth: Prevalence, course and co-occurrence. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2006;24:107–20Google Scholar

Ayers, S, Joseph, S, Kenzie-McHarg, K, Slade, P, Wijma, K. Post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth: current issues and recommendations for future research. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2008;29:240–50Google Scholar

Wijma, K, Soderquist, J, Wijma, B. Posttraumatic stress disorder after childbirth: a cross sectional study. J Anxiety Disord 1997;11:587–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ryding, EL, Wijma, K, Wijma, B. Psychological impact of emergency cesarean section in comparison with elective cesarean section, instrumental and normal vaginal delivery. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1998;19:135–44Google Scholar

Stramrood, CA, Wessel, I, Doornbos, B, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder following preeclampsia and PPROM: a prospective study with 15 months follow-up. Reprod Sci 2011;18:645–53Google Scholar

Soderquist, J, Wijma, B, Wijma, K. The longitudinal course of post-traumatic stress after childbirth. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2006;27:113–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Parfitt, YM, Ayers, S. The effect of post-natal symptoms of post-traumatic stress and depression on the couple’s relationship and parent–baby bond. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2009;27:127–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rouhe, H, Salmela-Aro, K, Halmesmaki, E, Saisto, T. Fear of childbirth according to parity, gestational age, and obstetric history. BJOG 2009;116:67–73Google Scholar

Gottvall, K, Waldenstrom, U. Does a traumatic birth experience have an impact on future reproduction? BJOG 2002;109:254–60Google Scholar

Fuglenes, D, Aas, E, Botten, G, Oian, P, Kristiansen, IS. Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:45–9Google Scholar

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guideline. RCOG Press, 2004Google Scholar

Hall, MH, Bewley, S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999;354:776CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harper, MA, Byington, RP, Espeland, MA, et al. Pregnancy-related death and health care services. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:273Google Scholar

Shellhaas for the NICHD MFMU Network. The MFMU cesarean registry: Cesarean hysterectomy – its indications, morbidities, and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:S123Google Scholar

Kastner, ES, Figueroa, R, Garry, D, et al. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: experience at a community teaching hospital. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:971Google Scholar

Knight, M, Kurinczuk, JJ, Spark, P, Brocklehurst, P. United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System Steering Committee. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:97–105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Myles, TD, Gooch, J, Santolaya, J. Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:959Google Scholar

Marshall, NE, Fu, R, Guise, JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:262.e1–8Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy. A prospective study in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124:187–92Google Scholar

Smith, GC, Pell, JP, Dobbie, R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003;362:1779–84Google Scholar

Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32Google Scholar

Solheim, KN, Esakoff, TF, Little, SE, et al. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:1341–6Google Scholar

Green, R, Gardeil, F, Turner, MJ. Long-term effects of cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;176:254–5Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:171–6Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Uterine rupture and its complications in the Netherlands: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;128:257–61Google Scholar

Guise, JM, McDonagh, MS, Osterwell, P, et al. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with a previous cesarean section. Br Med J 2004;329:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacDorman, MF, Declercq, E, Menacker, F, Malloy, MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk,” United States, 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006;3:175–82Google Scholar

Fogelson, NS, Menard, MK, Hulsey, T, Ebeling, M. Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: A comment on patient choice cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1433–6Google Scholar

Levine, EM, Ghai, V, Barton, JJ, Strom, CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:439–42Google Scholar

Bowers, SK. Prevention of iatrogenic respiratory distress syndrome: elective repeat section and spontaneous delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143:186–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doherty, EG, Eichenwald, EC. Cesarean delivery: emphasis on the neonate. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:332–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Darmasseelane, K, Hyde, MJ, Santhakumaran, S, Gale, C, Modi, N. Mode of delivery and offspring body mass index, overweight and obesity in adult life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e87896Google Scholar

Hyde, MJ, Mostyn, A, Modi, N, Kemp, PR. The health implications of birth by caesarean section. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2012;87:229–43Google Scholar

Laubereau, B, Filipiak-Pittroff, B, von Berg, A, et al. Caesarean section and gastrointestinal symptoms, atopic dermatitis, and sensitisation during the first year of life. Arch Dis Child 2004;89:993–7Google Scholar

Ajslev, TA, Andersen, CS, Gamborg, M et al. Childhood overweight after establishment of the gut microbiota: the role of delivery mode, pre-pregnancy weight and early administration of antibiotics. Int J Obes 2011;35:522–9Google Scholar

Dominguez-Bello, MG, Costello, EK, Contreras, M et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;107:11971–5Google Scholar

Nue, J, Rushing, J. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: long term infant outcomes and the hygiene hypothesis. Clin Perinatol 2011;38:321–31Google Scholar

Tollånes, MC, Moster, D, Daltveit, AK, Irgens, LM. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J Pediatr 2008;153:112–16Google Scholar

Seeman, P, Weinshenker, D, Quirion, R, et al. Dopamine supersensitivity correlates with D2High states, implying many paths to psychosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:3513–18Google Scholar

Ventura, SJ, Martin, JA, Curtin, SC, Mathews, TJ, Park, MM. Births: Final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000;48:1–10Google Scholar

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2003. www.hcup.ahrq.gov/Google Scholar

Henderson, J, McCandlish, R, Kumiega, L, Petrou, S. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:149–57Google Scholar

Murphy, DJ, Stirrat, GM, Heron, J; ALSPAC Study Team. The relationship between Cesarean section and sub-fertility in a population-based sample of 14 541 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1914–17Google Scholar

Mollison, J, Porter, M, Campbell, D, Bhattacharya, S. Primary mode of delivery and subsequent pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:1061–5Google Scholar

Wagner, M. Fish can’t see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;75:25–37Google Scholar

Johnson, AM, Bellerose, L, Billstrom, R, Deckers, E, Beller, P. Evaluating outcomes of labor inductions beyond 39 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:58SGoogle Scholar

Seyb, ST, Berka, RJ, Socol, ML, Doodley, SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600–7Google Scholar

Macer, JA, Macer, CL, Chan, LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1690–6Google Scholar

Cammu, H, Marten, G, Ruyssinck, G, Amy, JJ. Outcome after elective induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240–4Google Scholar

Luthy, DA, Malmgren, JA, Zingheim, RW. Increased Cesarean section rates associated with elective induction in nulliparous women; the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1511–15Google Scholar

Dublin, S, Lydon-Rochelle, M, Kaplan, RC, Watts, DH, Critchlow, CW. Maternal and fetal outcomes after induction without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;18:986–94Google Scholar

Van Gemund, N, Hardeman, A, Scherjon, SA, Kanhai, HH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset: a matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003;56:133–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maslow, AS, Sweeny, AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:917–22Google ScholarPubMed

Smith, KM, Hoffman, MK, Scicione, A. Elective induction of labor in nulliparous women increases the risk of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:S45Google Scholar

Kauffman, K, Bailit, J, Grobman, W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vahratian, A, Zhang, J, Troendle, JF, et al. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:698–704Google Scholar

Hamar, B, Mann, S, Greenberg, P, et al. Low-risk inductions of labor and cesarean delivery for nulliparous and parous women at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:215Google Scholar

Yeast, JD, Jones, A, Poskin, M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery; a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628–33Google Scholar

Johnson, DP, Davis, NR, Brown, AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1565–72Google Scholar

Vrouenraets, FP, Roumen, FJ, Dehing, CJ, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:690–7Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar

Kozhimannil, KB, Law, MR, Virnig, BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff 2013;32:527–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Bloom, SL. Section IV. Labor and Delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics, 22nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005:496Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Pham, JC, Aswani, MS, Rosen, M, et al. Reducing medical errors and adverse events. Ann Rev Med 2012;63:447–63Google Scholar

Chin, GS, Warren, N, Kornman, L, Cameron, P. Patients’ perceptions of safety and quality of maternity clinical handover. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011;11:58Google Scholar

Chin, GS, Warren, N, Kornman, L, Cameron, P. Transferring responsibility and accountability in maternity care: clinicians defining their boundaries of practice in relation to clinical handover. Br Med J Open 2012;2(5):e000734Google Scholar

Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, et al. National Vital Statistics Reports. Report No. 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Vital Statistics System; 2012Google Scholar

The Health and Social Care Information Centre. NHS Maternity Statistics 2011–2012 Summary Report. Geneva, Switzerland: National Health Service; 2012. Available at: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hesGoogle Scholar

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Li Z, Zeki, R, Hilder, L, et al. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2010. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2012. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129542376Google Scholar

EURO-PERISTAT Project. European Perinatal Health Report. Paris: EURO-PERISTAT; 2008. Available at: http://www.europeristat.comGoogle Scholar

Wing, DA, Lockwood, CJ, Barss, VA. Induction of labor. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014Google Scholar

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. AHRQ Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 176. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2009 (Systematic review)Google Scholar

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107; 2009Google Scholar

Nelson, KB. Can we prevent cerebral palsy? N Engl J Med 2003;349:1765–9Google Scholar

Matthews, TG, Crowley, P, Chong, A, et al. Rising caesarean section rates: A cause for concern. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;110:346–9Google Scholar

Notzon, FC. International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. JAMA 1990;263:3286–91Google Scholar

Lomas, J, Enkin, M. Variations in operative delivery rates. In Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJ, eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998Google Scholar

MacDorman, MF, Declercq, E, Menacker, F, Malloy, MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk,” United States 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006;3:175–82Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www:cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/Google Scholar

Harper, MA, Byington, RP, Espeland, MA, et al. Pregnancy-related death and health care services. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:273.Google Scholar

Chalmers, I, Keirse, MJNC, Enkin, M, eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol. 2: Childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998Google Scholar

Filly, RA. Obstetrical ultrasonography: the best way to terrify a pregnant woman. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19:1–5Google Scholar

Wood, L, Newton, JM, Wamg, L, Lesser, K. Borderline amniotic fluid index and its relation to fetal intolerance of labor. J Ultrasound Med 2014;33:705–11Google Scholar

Levine, AB, Lockwood, CJ, Brown, B, Lapinski, R, Berkowitz, RL. Sonographic diagnosis of the large for gestational age fetus at term: does it make a difference? Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:55–8Google Scholar

Naylor, CD, Sermer, M, Chen, E, Sykora, K. Cesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance: pathophysiology or practice style? JAMA 1996;275:1199–2000Google Scholar

Jahn, A, Razum, O, Berle, P. Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Germany: Low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;77:643–8Google Scholar

Sadeh-Mestechkin, D, Walfisch, A, Shachar, R, et al. Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:225–230Google Scholar

Agustsson, T, Geirsson, RT, Mires, G. Obstetric outcome of natural and assisted conception twin pregnancies is similar. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;6:45–9Google Scholar

Cnattingius, R, Cnattingius, S, Notzon, FC. Obstacles to reducing cesarean rates in a low-cesarean setting: the effect of maternal age, height and weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:501–6Google Scholar

Stewart, PJ, Duhlberg, C, Arnett, AC, Elmslie, T, Hall, PF. Diagnosis of dystocia and management with cesarean section among primiparous women in Ottowa Carleton. CMAJ 1990;142:459–63Google Scholar

Foureur, MJ, Leap, N, Davis, DL, Forbes, IF, Homer, C. Developing the Birth Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool (BUDSET) in Australia: a qualitative study. HERD 2009;3:43–57.Google Scholar

Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, Neilson, J, et al. Hospital practices. In: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simkin, P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Women’s long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I. Birth 1991;18:203–10Google Scholar

Simkin, P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Women’s long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part II. Birth 1991;19:64–81Google Scholar

Hunter, B, Deery, R. Emotions in Midwifery and Reproduction, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan; 2009Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar

Menticoglou, SM, Hall, PF. Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109:485–91Google Scholar

Keriakos, R, Sugumar, S, Hilal, N. Instrumental vaginal delivery – back to basics. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;33:781–86Google Scholar

Keirse, MJNC. Home births: gone away, gone astray, and here to stay. Birth 2010;37:341–6Google Scholar

Kaufman, KJ. Effective control or effective care. Birth 1993;20:150–61Google Scholar

Block, J. Pushed: The Painful Truth about Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press; 2007Google Scholar

Wagner, M. Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to Put Women and Children First. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2007Google Scholar

Lake, R, Epstein, E. The Business of Being Born (documentary film) (2007) www.thebusinessofbeingborn.com/about.htm.Google Scholar

Tritten, J. The miracle of homebirth. Midwifery Today Int Midwife 2010;93:5Google Scholar

Verloskundig vademecum 2003 – Eindrapport van de Commissie Verloskunde van het College voor zorgverzekeringen. [Obstetric vademecum 2003 – Final report of the Committee Obstetrics of the College of health insurances]. De verloskundige-indicatielijst 2003. [List of obstetric indications 2003] Accessed October 2014. Available at: http://www.knov.nl/vakkennisenweteschap/richtlijnen/verloskundigeindicatielijstGoogle Scholar

Stubbs, V. Working relations: midwives and obstetricians in the Netherlands. Midwifery Today Int Midwife 2003;67:52–5Google Scholar

De, Vries R. Midwifery in the Netherlands: vestige or vanguard? Med Anthropol 2001;20:277–311Google Scholar

Perinatal care in the Netherlands 2012 (in Dutch). Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland. www.perinatreg.nlGoogle Scholar

Rijnders, M, Baston, H, Schönbeck, Y, et al. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in the Netherlands. Birth 2008;35:107–16Google Scholar

Zeitlin, J, Mohangoo, AD, Delnord, M, Cuttini, M. EURO-PERISTAT Scientific Committee. The second European Perinatal Health Report: documenting changes over 6 years in the health of mothers and babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:983–5Google Scholar

Evers, AC, Brouwers, HA, Hukkelhoven, CWPM, et al. Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study. Br Med J 2010;341:c5639Google Scholar

Olsen, O, Clausen, JA. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; Cochrane Library DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub2Google Scholar

Sandall, J, Soltani, H, Gates, S, Shennan, A, Devane, D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013Google Scholar

Murphy, M, McDonagh, Hull, P. Choosing Cesarean Delivery: A Natural Birth Plan. Prometheus Books; 2012Google Scholar

McKinnie, V, Swift, SE, Wang, W, et al. The effect of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:512–7Google Scholar

Barret, G, Peacock, J, Victor, CR, Manyonda, I. Cesarean section and postnatal sexual health. Birth 2005;32:306–11Google Scholar

Handa, VL, Brubaker, L, Falf, SJ. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse associated with pregnancy and childbirth. UpToDate. Accessed October 2014Google Scholar

Bahl, R, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Pelvic floor morbidity at 3 years after instrumental delivery and cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor and the impact of a subsequent delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:789–94Google Scholar

Durnea, CM, Khashan, AS, Kenny, LC, et al. The role of prepregnancy pelvic floor dysfunction in postnatal pelvic morbidity in primiparous women. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:1363–74Google Scholar

Stafne, SN, Salvesen, KÅ, Romundstad, PR, et al. Does regular exercise including pelvic floor muscle training prevent urinary and anal incontinence during pregnancy? A randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaec 2012;119:1270–80Google Scholar

ACOG Committee Opinion. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of decision making. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1101–6Google Scholar

Leeman, L, Plante, LA. Patient-choice vaginal delivery? Ann Fam Med 2006;4:265–8Google Scholar

Metz, TD, Scott, JR. Contemporary management of VBAC. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012;55:1026–32Google Scholar

Kotaska, A, Menticoglou, S, Gagnon, R, et al. Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31:557–66, 567–78.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. FDA official: “clinical trial system is broken”. Br Med J 2013;347:f16980Google Scholar

Spence, D. Evidence based medicine is broken. Br Med J 2014;348:g22Google Scholar

Greenhalgh, T, Howick, J, Maskrey, N; Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? Br Med J 2014;348:g3725Google Scholar

Prusava, K, Churcher, L, Tyler, A, Lokugamage, AU. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology guidelines: How evidence-based are they? J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;12:1–6 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar

Allen, D, Harkins, K. Too much evidence? Lancet 2005;365:1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar

NICE-guidelines. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. 2007. RCOG press. Updated 2010 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg55Google Scholar

Howick, J. The evidence based renaissance: Holy Grail or poisoned chalice BioMed Central Blog 2014. http://biomedcentral.com/bmcblogGoogle Scholar

McIntyre, KM. Medicolegal implications of consensus statements. Chest 1995;108:502–5Google Scholar

Hyams, AL, Brandenburg, JA, Lipsitz, SR, et al. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:440–5Google Scholar

Hirshfeld, EB. Should practice parameters be the standard of care in malpractice litigation? JAMA 1991;266:2886–91Google Scholar

Ioannidis, JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2:e124Google Scholar

Kotaska, A. Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. Br Med J 2004;329:039–42Google Scholar

Menticoglou, SM, Hall, PF. Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: Nonsensus consensus. Br J Obstet Gynaec 2002;109:485–91Google Scholar

Keirse, MJ. Commentary: the freezing aftermath of a hot randomized controlled trial. Birth 2011;38:165–7Google Scholar

Tonelli, MR. The philosophical limits of evidence based medicine. Acad Med 1998;73:1234–40Google Scholar

Moynihan, R, Doust, JC, Henry, D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. Br Med J 2012;344:e3502Google Scholar

Keirse, MJNC. Home births: gone away, gone astray, and here to stay. Birth 2010;37:341–6Google Scholar

Devries, RG. The warp of evidence-based medicine: lessons from Dutch maternity care. Int J Health Serv 2004;34:595–623Google Scholar

Keirse, MJ. Elective induction, selective deduction, and cesarean section. Birth 2010;37:252–56Google Scholar

Bewley, S, Shennan, A. HYPITAT and the fallacy of pregnancy interruption. Lancet 2010;375:119Google Scholar

Greene, MF. Delivering twins. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1365–6Google Scholar

Mishanina, E, Rogozinska, E, Thatthi, T, et al. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2014;168:665–73Google Scholar

Inducing labour reduces risk of caesarean delivery by 12%, finds analysis. Br Med J 6 May 2014; www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2960/rr/696718Google Scholar

Cesarean deliveries drop 12% with induction. Medscape 2014; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824211Google Scholar

Caughey, AB, Sundaram, V, Kaimal, AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:252–63Google Scholar

Gülmezoglu, AM, Crowther, CA, Middleton, P, et al. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; CD004945Google Scholar

Wennerholm, UB, Hagberg, H, Brorsson, B, et al. Induction of labor versus expectant management for post-date pregnancy: Is there sufficient evidence for a change in clinical practice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:6–17Google Scholar

Wood, S, Cooper, S, Ross, S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. Br J Obstet Gynaec 2014;121:674–85 discussion 685Google Scholar

Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hellmann, J, et al. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group. Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1587–92Google Scholar

Keirse, MJ. Postterm pregnancy: New lessons from an unresolved debate. Birth 1993;20:102–105Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711Google Scholar

Henderson, J1, Redshaw, M. Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1159–67Google Scholar

Hildingsson, I, Karlström, A, Nystedt, A. Women’s experiences of induction of labour–findings from a Swedish regional study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;51:151–7Google Scholar

Enabor, OO, Olayemi, OO, Bello, FA, Adedokun, BO. Cervical ripening and induction of labour awareness, knowledge and perception of antenatal attendees in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;3:652–56Google Scholar

Shetty, A, Burt, R, Rice, P, Templeton, A. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour—a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;123:56–61Google Scholar

Nuutila, M, Halmesmäki, E, Hillesmaa, V, Ylikorkala, O. Women’s anticipations of and experiences with induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78:704–9Google Scholar

Bramadat, IJ. Induction of labor: an integrated review. Health Care Women Int. 1994;15:135–48Google Scholar