Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: An ecological study

Birth

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 270-277

  Althabe, Fernando ^a,d   Sosa, Claudio ^a   Belizán, José M ^b   Gibbons, Luz ^b   Jacquerioz, Frederique ^c   Bergel, Eduardo ^a  

^a HOSPITAL DE CLÍNICAS   (Uruguay)

^b INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND HEALTH POLICY   (Argentina)

^c TULANE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Hospital de Clínicas   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Infant mortality; Maternal mortality; Morbidity; Newborn

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NEWBORN; NEWBORN MORTALITY; OBSTETRIC CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCOME; INFANT MORTALITY; INFANT, NEWBORN; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MORBIDITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME;

EID: 33751242322     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00118.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of cesarean sections in Latin America: Ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-1400.
2. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436-437.
3. Eckerlund I, Gerdtham UG. Estimating the effect of cesarean section rate on health outcome. Evidence from Swedish hospital data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15:123-135.
4. What is the right number of cesarean sections? Lancet 1997;349:815.
5. Joffe M, Chapple J, Paterson C, Beard RW. What is the optimal cesarean section rate? An outcome based study of existing variation. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;4:406-411.
6. ACOG criteria set. Cesarean delivery. Number 35, July 1998. Committee on Quality Assessment. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998;63:206-207.
7. Gould JB, Danielsen B, Korst LM, et al. Cesarean delivery rates and neonatal morbidity in a low-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:11-19.
8. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000;356:1375-1383.
9. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, et al. Planned elective repeat cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous cesarean birth. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. Issue 4. 2004 (CD004224).
10. The International Perinatal HIV Group. The mode of delivery and the risk of vertical transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 - A meta-analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies. N Engl J Med 1999;340:977-987.
11. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Cesarean Section Clinical. Guideline April 2004. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http:/www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=113190.
12. Dumont A, de Bernis L, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G. Cesarean section rate for maternal indication in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Lancet 2001;358:1328-1333.
13. Buekens P, Curtis S, Alayon S. Demographic and Health Surveys: Cesarean section rates in sub-Saharan Africa. BMJ 2003;326:136.
14. Zezai A, Apers L, Zishiri C. Cesarean section rate as a process indicator of safe motherhood programmes: The case of Midlands Province. Cent Afr J Med 2001;47:129-134.
15. UON Network. Unmet Need for Major Obstetric Interventions. Part 1. Concepts, General Principles and International Network. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.uonn.org.
16. O'Driscoll K, Foley M. Correlation of decrease in perinatal mortality and increase in cesarean section rates. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:1-5.
17. Health Canada. Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2000. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cphr-rspc00/index. html.
18. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: Final Data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002; 51(2). Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_02.pdf.
19. World Health Organization. The World Health Report: 2005: Make Every Mother and Child Count. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2005/en/index.html.
20. Massarrat MS, Tahaghoghi-Mehrizi S. Iran National Health Survey: A brief report. Arch Iran Med 2002;5:73-75.
21. Jurdi R, KhawajaM. Cesarean section rates in the Arab region: A cross-national study. Health Policy Plan 2004;19:101-110.
22. Guihard P, Blondel B. Trends in risk factors for cesarean sections in France between 1981 and 1995: Lessons for reducing the rates in the future. BJOG 2001;108:48-55.
23. Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee MS. Women's attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea - A society with high cesarean section rates. Birth 2004;31:108-116.
24. Guo SF, Zhao FM, Wu KS, et al. Trends of cesarean section and related social and demographic factors in China from 1971 to 2003. Chin J Perinat Med 2005;8:141-149.
25. Macro International. Demographic Health Surveys. Measure DHS. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.measuredhs.com/.
26. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, et al. Reliability of data on cesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(6):449-455.
27. The World Bank Group. Gross National Income Data by Country. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/gdp. html.
28. Central Intelligence Agency. United States: The World Fact Book 2005. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/ factbook/.
29. International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. Country Classification. Accessed April 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.iussp.org.
30. Susser M. The logic in ecological: I. The logic of analysis. Am J Public Health 1994;84:825-829.
31. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
32. Greenland S. Ecologic versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologic estimates of contextual health effects. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:1343-1350.
33. Bay KS, Saunders LD, Wilson DR. Socioeconomic risk factors and population-based regional allocation of healthcare funds. Health Serv Manage Res 1999;12:79-91.
34. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006;367:1819-1829.