Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections

The Lancet

Volumn 392, Issue 10155, 2018, Pages 1341-1348

  Boerma, Ties ^a   Ronsmans, Carine ^b   Melesse, Dessalegn Y ^a   Barros, Aluisio J D ^c   Barros, Fernando C ^d   Juan, Liang ^f   Moller, Ann Beth ^e   Say, Lale ^e   Hosseinpoor, Ahmad Reza ^e   Yi, Mu ^f   de Lyra Rabello Neto, Dácio ^g   Temmerman, Marleen ^h,i  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PELOTAS   (Brazil)

^d CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PELOTAS   (Brazil)

^e WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^f SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^g MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE   (Brazil)

^h AGA KHAN UNIVERSITY   (Pakistan)

ⁱ GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BRAZIL; BUILDING; CARIBBEAN; CENTRAL AFRICA; CESAREAN SECTION; CHINA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRY; REVIEW; SOUTH SUDAN; UNCERTAINTY; GLOBAL HEALTH; HEALTH EQUITY; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICE; POVERTY; PREGNANCY; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; GLOBAL HEALTH; HEALTH EQUITY; HUMANS; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; POVERTY; PREGNANCY; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 85054563858     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Biccard, BM, Madiba, TE, Kluyts, HL, et al. Perioperative patient outcomes in the African Surgical Outcomes Study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 391 (2018), 1589–1598.
2. Betran, AP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, J, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health, 12, 2015, 57.
3. Ye, J, Betrán, AP, Guerrero Vela, M, Souza, JP, Zhang, J, Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth 41 (2014), 237–244.
4. Betrán, AP, Ye, J, Moller, AB, Zhang, J, Gülmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR, The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0148343.
5. Molina, G, Weiser, TG, Lipsitz, SR, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA 314 (2015), 2263–2270.
6. Betrán, AP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, JJ, Gülmezoglu, AM, WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 123 (2016), 667–670.
7. Boatin, AA, Schlotheuber, A, Betran, AP, et al. Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries. BMJ, 360, 2018, k55.
8. Sandall, J, Tribe, RM, Avery, L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet 392 (2018), 1349–1357.
9. Betrán, AP, Temmerman, M, Kingdon, C, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet 392 (2018), 1358–1368.
10. Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M, Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 27 (2013), 297–308.
11. Dahlen, HG, Tracy, S, Tracy, M, Bisits, A, Brown, C, Thornton, C, Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study. BMJ Open, 2, 2012, e001723.
12. Einarsdóttir, K, Haggar, F, Pereira, G, et al. Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study. BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e002789.
13. Barros, AJ, Santos, IS, Matijasevich, A, et al. Patterns of deliveries in a Brazilian birth cohort: almost universal cesarean sections for the better-off. Rev Saude Publica 45 (2011), 635–643.
14. Hoxha, I, Syrogiannouli, L, Luta, X, et al. Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 7, 2017, e013670.
15. Vogel, JP, Betrán, AP, Vindevoghel, N, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health 3 (2015), e260–e270.
16. Liang, J, Mu, Y, Li, X, et al. Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births. BMJ, 360, 2018, k817.
17. Osterman, MJ, Martin, JA, Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2013. Natl Vital Stat Reports 63 (2014), 1–16.
18. Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJ, Births in the United States, 2013. NCHS Data Brief 175 (2014), 1–8.
19. Stanton, CK, Dubourg, D, De Brouwere, V, Pujades, M, Ronsmans, C, Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 83 (2005), 449–455.
20. Tunçalp, O, Stanton, C, Castro, A, et al. Measuring coverage in MNCH: validating women's self-report of emergency cesarean sections in Ghana and the Dominican Republic. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e60761.
21. Guo, Y, Liu, L, Li, M, Yang, L, Ju, L, et al. Measuring coverage in MNCH: A validation study linking population survey derived coverage to maternal, newborn, and child health care records in rural China. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e60762.
22. Belizán, JM, Minckas, N, McClure, E, et al. An approach to identify a minimum and rational proportion of caesarean sections in resource-poor settings: a global network study. Lancet Glob Health 6 (2018), e894–e901.
23. Betrán, AP, Vindevoghel, N, Souza, JP, Gülmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR, A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e97769.