Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

Malpractice anxiety and primary cesarean decision-making: a parallel-group cross-sectional study comparing specialists and residents

Ömer Osman Eroğlu(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0001-6764-0131
Sait Erbey(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0009-0007-1950-9041
Cansın Eroğlu(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0009-0004-5049-1415
Mehmet Alican Sapmaz(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0003-3812-3455
Murat Polat(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0009-0002-2964-729X
Çağanay Soysal(Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0002-4381-6099
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Exploratory findings suggest that institutional factors may also warrant consideration, although confirmation with more reliable instruments is needed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: Although Turkiye has one of the highest cesarean section rates among OECD countries, the influence of malpractice anxiety on cesarean decision-making has not been adequately characterized.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examined the associations between malpractice anxiety, defensive medical practices, and primary cesarean rate using a parallel-group design that simultaneously evaluated specialist self-reports and independent resident observations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Exploratory findings suggest that institutional factors may also warrant consideration, although confirmation with more reliable instruments is needed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Defensive medicine · cesarean delivery · obstetric practice

Abstract

Aims: Although Turkiye has one of the highest cesarean section rates among OECD countries, the influence of malpractice anxiety on cesarean decision-making has not been adequately characterized. This study examined the associations between malpractice anxiety, defensive medical practices, and primary cesarean rate using a parallel-group design that simultaneously evaluated specialist self-reports and independent resident observations. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted at a tertiary referral center and included 258 participants: 86 specialists (response rate 86.0%) and 172 residents (response rate 87.8%). Data were collected using the Modified Defensive Medicine Practices Attitude Scale adapted to the obstetric setting (mDMPAS-OB). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman rank correlation, and multivariable linear regression. Results: Composite defensive practice scores did not differ significantly between specialists and residents (p=0.130). Malpractice anxiety scores were significantly higher among residents (p=0.001). In exploratory analyses, the institutional factors subscale was correlated with primary cesarean rate (Spearman ρ=0.432, p<0.001), although its poor internal consistency (α=0.434) precluded its inclusion as an independent predictor and necessitates cautious interpretation. Physicians with prior malpractice experience had significantly higher mDMPAS-OB and malpractice anxiety scores (p=0.011 and p=0.003, respectively). Conclusion: Malpractice anxiety was associated with defensive attitudes in obstetric practice. The parallel-group design supports that defensive behaviors are observable in clinical practice. Exploratory findings suggest that institutional factors may also warrant consideration, although confirmation with more reliable instruments is needed.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eroğlu, Ö. O., Erbey, S., Eroğlu, C., Sapmaz, M. A., Polat, M., Soysal, Ç. (2026). Malpractice anxiety and primary cesarean decision-making: a parallel-group cross-sectional study comparing specialists and residents. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1929275

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
  2. Jauniaux E, Bartels HC, Nieto-Calvache AJ, Hussein AM. Evolution of modern cesarean delivery: historic perspective and new challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026;233(6):S557-S568.
  3. Turkish Ministry of Health, General Directorate of Health Information Systems. Health Statistics Yearbook 2024. Turkish Ministry of Health; 2025.
  4. Ulgu MM, Birinci S, Şahin İ, Batu Oto M, Demirsoy S. Caesarean section rates in Turkey: 2012-2021. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;20(1):1-8. doi:10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.32075
  5. Salgür F, Bilge M, Burkankulu D, et al. Are decisions about cesarean deliveries affected by litigation fears or economic expectations? J Gynecol Obstet Neonatal Med. 2025;22(4):467-472.
  6. Asici N, Kose E, Ekerbicer HC. Opinions and considerations of obstetrics and gynecology specialists on cesarean section: a qualitative study in Sakarya province. Anadolu Klin. 2025;30(1):9-16. doi:10.21673/anadoluklin.1562257
  7. Velebil P, Savona-Ventura C, Zaigham M, Mahmood T, Wladimiroff J, Louwen F. How to influence rising caesarean section rates in Europe? An invited scientific review by the European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (EBCOG). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025;311:113979. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.113979
  8. Guinan C, Walsh A. Health professionals’ attitudes to maternal request for caesarean birth: a scoping review. Birth. 2026;53(1):29-38.
  9. Elaraby S, Altieri E, Downe S, et al. Behavioural factors associated with fear of litigation as a driver for the increased use of caesarean sections: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(4):e070454. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070454
  10. Grasso I, Barranco R, Ferrero S, Ventura F. Medico-legal litigation in obstetrics and gynecology: an eleven-year case series and comparison of out-of-court resolution and legal proceedings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025;316:114795. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.114795
  11. Parker N, Falconieri N, Shah H, et al. Burnout, wellbeing and defensive medical practice in obstetricians and gynecologists in the UK before and after the COVID pandemic: a repeated cross-sectional survey study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025;104(9):1683-1693. doi:10.1111/aogs.15158
  12. Küçük M. Defensive medicine among obstetricians and gynaecologists in Turkey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(2):200-205. doi:10.1080/01443615.2017.1336750
  13. Rudey EL, Leal MC, Rego G. Defensive medicine and cesarean sections in Brazil. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(27):e26502. doi:10.1097/MD. 0000000000026502
  14. Baungaard N, Skovvang PL, Hvidt EA, Gerbild H, Andersen MK, Lykkegaard J. How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e057169. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057169
  15. Toma-Tumbar L, Nagy RD, Marinaș MC, Iliescu DG, Cara ML. Navigating the complex terrain of obstetrics and gynecology malpractice: stakeholders, expectations, and legal implications. J Clin Med. 2025;14(7):2266. doi:10.3390/jcm14072266
  16. Ünal MF, Akbolat M. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Defensive Medicine Practices Attitude Scale. Med Decis Making. 2022;42(5):612-621. doi:10.1177/0272989X221091445