Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies

The Lancet

Volumn 392, Issue 10155, 2018, Pages 1358-1368

  Betrán, Ana Pilar ^a   Temmerman, Marleen ^b,c   Kingdon, Carol ^d   Mohiddin, Abdu ^b   Opiyo, Newton ^e   Torloni, Maria Regina ^f   Zhang, Jun ^g   Musana, Othiniel ^h   Wanyonyi, Sikolia Z ^b   Gülmezoglu, Ahmet Metin ^a   Downe, Soo ^d  

^a WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^b AGA KHAN UNIVERSITY   (Pakistan)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^e Review Production and Quality Unit   (United Kingdom)

^f FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^g SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (China)

^h UGANDA MARTYRS UNIVERSITY   (Uganda)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMNIOTOMY; BREECH EXTRACTION; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; FETUS MONITORING; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; LABOR; MALPRACTICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOEDUCATION; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNNECESSARY CESAREAN SECTION; UTERINE TUBE LIGATION; VAGINAL DELIVERY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIRTH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; LABOR COMPLICATION; NEWBORN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; UTILIZATION;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PARTURITION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PREGNANCY; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 85054591487     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5     Document Type: Review

References (123)

1. WHO, Human Reproduction Programme. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. April, 2015, World Health Organization, Geneva http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/cs-statement/en/. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
2. Boerma, T, Ronsmans, C, Barros, AJ, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet, 2018 published online Oct 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7.
3. 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, 2018 published online Oct 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5.
4. Gibbons, L, Belizan, JM, Lauer, JA, Betran, AP, Merialdi, M, Althabe, F, Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 206, 2012, 331.
5. Cavallaro, FL, Cresswell, JA, Ronsmans, C, Obstetricians' opinions of the optimal caesarean rate: a global survey. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0152779.
6. Betrán, AP, Ye, J, Moller, AB, Zhang, J, Gulmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR, The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0148343.
7. Habiba, M, Kaminski, M, Da Fre, M, et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 113 (2006), 647–656.
8. Main, EK, Morton, CH, Melsop, K, Hopkins, D, Giuliani, G, Gould, JB, Creating a public agenda for maternity safety and quality in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 120 (2012), 1194–1198.
9. 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.
10. Kabir, AA, Steinmann, WC, Myers, L, et al. Unnecessary cesarean delivery in Louisiana: an analysis of birth certificate data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190 (2004), 10–19.
11. Koroukian, SM, Trisel, B, Rimm, AA, Estimating the proportion of unnecessary Cesarean sections in Ohio using birth certificate data. J Clin Epidemiol 51 (1998), 1327–1334.
12. Chen, I, Opiyo, N, Tavender, E, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, 2018 CD005528.
13. Robson, SJ, Tan, WS, Adeyemi, A, Dear, KBG, Estimating the rate of cesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Birth 36 (2009), 208–212.
14. Weaver, JJ, Statham, H, Richards, M, Are there “unnecessary” cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth 34 (2007), 32–41.
15. Bettes, BA, Coleman, VH, Zinberg, S, et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 109 (2007), 57–66.
16. Mazzoni, A, Althabe, F, Liu, NH, et al. Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG 118 (2011), 391–399.
17. McCourt, C, Weaver, J, Statham, H, Beake, S, Gamble, J, Creedy, DK, Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 34 (2007), 65–79.
18. Mi, J, Liu, F, Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet 383 (2014), 1463–1464.
19. Buyukbayrak, EE, Kaymaz, O, Kars, B, et al. Caesarean delivery or vaginal birth: preference of Turkish pregnant women and influencing factors. J Obstet Gynaecol 30 (2010), 155–158.
20. Nieminen, K, Wijma, K, Johansson, S, et al. Severe fear of childbirth indicates high perinatal costs for Swedish women giving birth to their first child. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96 (2017), 438–446.
21. Yilmaz, SD, Bal, MD, Beji, NK, Uludag, S, Women's preferences of method of delivery and influencing factors. Iran Red Crescent Med J 15 (2013), 683–689.
22. 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, 205, 2011, 45.
23. Kringeland, T, Daltveit, AK, Moller, A, What characterizes women in Norway who wish to have a caesarean section?. Scand J Public Health 37 (2009), 364–371.
24. Long Q, Kingdon C, Yand F, et al. Preference for caesarean section in China: a mixed-methods systematic review of women's and healthcare providers' views and experience. PLoS Med (in press).
25. Bracken, JN, Dryfhout, VL, Goldenhar, LM, Pauls, RN, Preferences and concerns for delivery: an antepartum survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19 (2008), 1527–1531.
26. Ghotbi, F, Akbari Sene, A, Azargashb, E, et al. Women's knowledge and attitude towards mode of delivery and frequency of cesarean section on mother's request in six public and private hospitals in Tehran, Iran, 2012. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40 (2014), 1257–1266.
27. Hopkins, K, Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?. Soc Sci Med 51 (2000), 725–740.
28. Loke, AY, Davies, L, Li, SF, Factors influencing the decision that women make on their mode of delivery: the Health Belief Model. BMC Health Serv Res, 15, 2015, 274.
29. Torloni, MR, Betran, AP, Montilla, P, et al. Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 13, 2013, 78.
30. Pang, MW, Lee, TS, Leung, AK, Leung, TY, Lau, TK, Leung, TN, A longitudinal observational study of preference for elective caesarean section among nulliparous Hong Kong Chinese women. BJOG 114 (2007), 623–629.
31. Hug, I, Chattopadhyay, C, Mitra, GR, Kar Mahapatra, RM, Schneider, MC, Maternal expectations and birth-related experiences: a survey of pregnant women of mixed parity from Calcutta, India. Int J Obstet Anesth 17 (2008), 112–117.
32. Dweik, D, Girasek, E, Toreki, A, Meszaros, G, Pal, A, Women's antenatal preferences for delivery route in a setting with high cesarean section rates and a medically dominated maternity system. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93 (2014), 408–415.
33. Kasai, KE, Nomura, RM, Benute, GR, de Lucia, MC, Zugaib, M, Women's opinions about mode of birth in Brazil: a qualitative study in a public teaching hospital. Midwifery 26 (2010), 319–326.
34. Schantz, C, Sim, KL, Petit, V, Rany, H, Goyet, S, Factors associated with caesarean sections in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Reprod Health Matters 24 (2016), 111–121.
35. Karlstrom, A, Nystedt, A, Johansson, M, Hildingsson, I, Behind the myth—few women prefer caesarean section in the absence of medical or obstetrical factors. Midwifery 27 (2011), 620–627.
36. Tschudin, S, Alder, J, Hendriksen, S, et al. Pregnant women's perception of cesarean section on demand. J Perinat Med 37 (2009), 251–256.
37. Hogberg, U, Lynoe, N, Wulff, M, Cesarean by choice? Empirical study of public attitudes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87 (2008), 1301–1308.
38. Fenwick, J, Staff, L, Gamble, J, Creedy, DK, Bayes, S, Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy?. Midwifery 26 (2010), 394–400.
39. Bryant, J, Porter, M, Tracy, SK, Sullivan, EA, Caesarean birth: consumption, safety, order, and good mothering. Soc Sci Med 65 (2007), 1192–1201.
40. Fioretti, B, Reiter, M, Betran, A, Torloni, M, Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the internet. BJOG 122 (2014), 731–739.
41. Torloni, M, Campos Mansilla, B, Merialdi, M, Betran, A, What do popular Spanish women's magazines say about caesarean section? A 21-year survey. BJOG 121 (2014), 548–555.
42. Bantan, N, Abenhaim, HA, Vaginal births after caesarean: what does Google think about it?. Women Birth 28 (2015), 21–24.
43. Amyx, M, Gibbons, L, Xiong, X, et al. Sources of influence on pregnant women's preferred mode of delivery in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Birth 45 (2018), 71–78.
44. Johansson, M, Radestad, I, Rubertsson, C, Karlstrom, A, Hildingsson, I, Few fathers-to-be prefer caesarean section for the birth of their baby. BJOG 117 (2010), 761–764.
45. Kingdon, C, Downe, S, Betrán, AP, Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health, 15, 2018, 130.
46. Ji, H, Jiang, H, Yang, L, Qian, X, Tang, S, Factors contributing to the rapid rise of caesarean section: a prospective study of primiparous Chinese women in Shanghai. BMJ Open, 5, 2015, e008994.
47. Studdert, DM, Mello, MM, Gawande, AA, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 354 (2006), 2024–2033.
48. Kravitz, RL, Rolph, JE, McGuigan, K, Malpractice claims data as a quality improvement tool: I. Epidemiology of error in four specialties. JAMA 266 (1991), 2087–2092.
49. Jena, AB, Schoemaker, L, Bhattacharya, J, Seabury, SA, Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ, 351, 2015, h5516.
50. Asher, E, Dvir, S, Seidman, DS, et al. Defensive medicine among obstetricians and gynecologists in tertiary hospitals. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e57108.
51. Grytten, J, Skau, I, Sorensen, R, The impact of the mass media on obstetricians' behavior in Norway. Health Policy 121 (2017), 986–993.
52. Bettes, BA, Strunk, AL, Coleman, VH, Schulkin, J, Professional liability and other career pressures: impact on obstetrician-gynecologists' career satisfaction. Obstet Gynecol 103 (2004), 967–973.
53. Litorp, H, Mgaya, A, Mbekenga, CK, Kidanto, HL, Johnsdotter, S, Essen, B, Fear, blame and transparency: obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting. Soc Sci Med 143 (2015), 232–240.
54. Localio, AR, Lawthers, AG, Bengtson, JM, et al. Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. JAMA 269 (1993), 366–373.
55. Dweik, D, Girasek, E, Meszaros, G, Toreki, A, Kereszturi, A, Pal, A, Non-medical determinants of cesarean section in a medically dominated maternity system. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93 (2014), 1025–1033.
56. Gomes, UA, Silva, AA, Bettiol, H, Barbieri, MA, Risk factors for the increasing caesarean section rate in southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978–1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol 28 (1999), 687–694.
57. Murray, SF, Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 321 (2000), 1501–1505.
58. Al Rifai, RH, Trend of caesarean deliveries in Egypt and its associated factors: evidence from national surveys, 2005–2014. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 17, 2017, 417.
59. Brazil Ministry of Health. SUS hospital procedures. http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sih/cnv/qiuf.def, 2015 (in Portuguese). (Accessed 12 July 2016)
60. Brazil Ministry of Health. MS/SVS/DASIS – national data system on live births – SINASC. http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sinasc/cnv/nvuf.def, 2016 (in Portuguese). (Accessed 12 July 2016)
61. Fauveau, V, Is vacuum extraction still known, taught and practiced? A worldwide KAP survey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 94 (2006), 185–189.
62. Bailey, PE, The disappearing art of instrumental delivery: time to reverse the trend. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 91 (2005), 89–96.
63. Robson, MS, Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 12 (2001), 23–39.
64. Betrán, AP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, J, Gülmezoglu, AM, WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. Commentary: WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 123 (2016), 667–670.
65. 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.
66. WHO. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. 2016, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/anc-positive-pregnancy-experience/en/. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
67. WHO. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. 2018, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/intrapartum-care-guidelines/en/. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
68. WHO. WHO recommendations on non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean births. 2018, World Health Organization, Geneva.
69. Walker, KF, Bugg, GJ, Macpherson, M, et al. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 374 (2016), 813–822.
70. Saccone, G, Berghella, V, Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213 (2015), 629–636.
71. Mishanina, E, Rogozinska, E, Thatthi, T, Uddin-Khan, R, Khan, KS, Meads, C, Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 186 (2014), 665–673.
72. National Institutes of Health. Induced labor after 39 weeks in healthy women may reduce need for C section. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-after-39-weeks-healthy-women-may-reduce-need-c-section, Feb 1, 2018. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
73. Middleton, P, Shepherd, E, Crowther, CA, Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 5, 2018 CD004945.
74. Grobman, W, LB01: a randomized trial of elective induction of labour at 39 weeks compared with expectant management of low-risk nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 218, 2018, S601 (abstr).
75. Main, E, CMQCC Leadership Team. Comments on the Arrive Trial. California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative. https://www.cmqcc.org/sites/default/files/Arrive%20Trial%20Statement%20Final.pdf, Feb 8, 2018. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
76. Brown, HC, Paranjothy, S, Dowswell, T, Thomas, J, Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4, 2013 CD004907.
77. Bohren, MA, Hofmeyr, GJ, Sakala, C, Fukuzawa, RK, Cuthbert, A, Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7, 2017 CD003766.
78. Hutton, EK, Hofmeyr, GJ, Dowswell, T, External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7, 2015 CD000084.
79. Hofmeyr, GJ, Hannah, M, Lawrie, TA, Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7, 2015 CD000166.
80. Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, Hodnett, ED, Saigal, S, Willan, AR, Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 356 (2000), 1375–1383.
81. Whyte, H, Hannah, ME, Saigal, S, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191 (2004), 864–871.
82. Bjellmo, S, Andersen, GL, Martinussen, MP, et al. Is vaginal breech delivery associated with higher risk for perinatal death and cerebral palsy compared with vaginal cephalic birth? Registry-based cohort study in Norway. BMJ Open, 7, 2017, e014979.
83. Dodd, JM, Crowther, CA, Hiller, JE, Haslam, RR, Robinson, JS, Birth after caesarean—planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat caesarean for women at term with a single previous caesarean birth: protocol for a patient preference study and randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 7, 2007, 17.
84. Crowther, CA, Dodd, JM, Hiller, JE, Haslam, RR, Robinson, JS, Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med, 9, 2012, e1001192.
85. Dodd, JM, Crowther, CA, Huertas, E, Guise, JM, Horey, D, Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 12, 2013 CD004224.
86. Clarke, M, Savage, G, Smith, V, et al. Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery and optimising childbirth by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section through enhanced women-centred care (OptiBIRTH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10612254). Trials, 16, 2015, 542.
87. Lomas, J, Enkin, M, Anderson, GM, Hannah, WJ, Vayda, E, Singer, J, Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 265 (1991), 2202–2207.
88. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 184: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 130 (2017), e217–e233.
89. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth (green-top guideline no. 45). https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg45/, February, 2017. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
90. Rossignol, M, Chaillet, N, Boughrassa, F, Moutquin, JM, Interrelations between four antepartum obstetric interventions and cesarean delivery in women at low risk: a systematic review and modeling of the cascade of interventions. Birth 41 (2014), 70–78.
91. 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, 4, 2016 CD004667.
92. Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D, Gyte, GM, Cuthbert, A, Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, 2017 CD006066.
93. Kingdon, C, Downe, S, Betrán, AP, Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One, 13, 2018, e0203274.
94. Bastani, F, Hidarnia, A, Montgomery, KS, Aguilar-Vafaei, ME, Kazemnejad, A, Does relaxation education in anxious primigravid Iranian women influence adverse pregnancy outcomes?: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 20 (2006), 138–146.
95. Feinberg, ME, Roettger, ME, Jones, DE, Paul, IM, Kan, ML, Effects of a psychosocial couple-based prevention program on adverse birth outcomes. Matern Child Health J 19 (2015), 102–111.
96. Valiani, M, Haghighatdana, Z, Ehsanpour, S, Comparison of childbirth training workshop effects on knowledge, attitude, and delivery method between mothers and couples groups referring to Isfahan health centers in Iran. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 19 (2014), 653–658.
97. Rouhe, H, Salmela-Aro, K, Toivanen, R, Tokola, M, Halmesmaki, E, Saisto, T, Obstetric outcome after intervention for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women – randomised trial. BJOG 120 (2013), 75–84.
98. Navaee, M, Abedian, Z, Effect of role play education on primiparous women's fear of natural delivery and their decision on the mode of delivery. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 20 (2015), 40–46.
99. Eden, KB, Perrin, NA, Vesco, KK, Guise, JM, A randomized comparative trial of two decision tools for pregnant women with prior cesareans. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 43 (2014), 568–579.
100. Fraser, W, Maunsell, E, Hodnett, E, Moutquin, JM, Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176 (1997), 419–425.
101. Shorten, A, Fagerlin, A, Illuzzi, J, et al. Developing an internet-based decision aid for women choosing between vaginal birth after cesarean and planned repeat cesarean. J Midwifery Womens Health 60 (2015), 390–400.
102. Althabe, F, Belizan, JM, Villar, J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 363 (2004), 1934–1940.
103. Chaillet, N, Dumont, A, Abrahamowicz, M, et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med 372 (2015), 1710–1721.
104. Rosenstein, MG, Nijagal, M, Nakagawa, S, Gregorich, SE, Kuppermann, M, the association of expanded access to a collaborative midwifery and laborist model with cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 126 (2015), 716–723.
105. Keeler, EB, Fok, T, Equalizing physician fees had little effect on cesarean rates. Med Care Res Rev 53 (1996), 465–471.
106. Lo, JC, Financial incentives do not always work: an example of cesarean sections in Taiwan. Health Policy 88 (2008), 121–129.
107. Hulscher, ME, Schouten, LM, Grol, RP, Buchan, H, Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show?. BMJ Qual Saf 22 (2013), 19–31.
108. Mazzucca, S, Tabak, RG, Pilar, M, et al. Variation in research designs used to test the effectiveness of dissemination and implementation strategies: a review. Front Public Health, 6, 2018, 32.
109. Portela, MC, Pronovost, PJ, Woodcock, T, Carter, P, Dixon-Woods, M, How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types. BMJ Qual Saf 24 (2015), 325–336.
110. Brown, CH, Curran, G, Palinkas, LA, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health 38 (2017), 1–22.
111. Brown, CH, Ten Have, TR, Jo, B, et al. Adaptive designs for randomized trials in public health. Annu Rev Public Health 30 (2009), 1–25.
112. Liu, X, Lynch, CD, Cheng, WW, Landon, MB, Lowering the high rate of caesarean delivery in China: an experience from Shanghai. BJOG 123 (2016), 1620–1628.
113. Yu, Y, Zhang, X, Sun, C, Zhou, H, Zhang, Q, Chen, C, Reducing the rate of cesarean delivery on maternal request through institutional and policy interventions in Wenzhou, China. PLoS One, 12, 2017, e0186304.
114. Ayres-De-Campos, D, Cruz, J, Medeiros-Borges, C, Costa-Santos, C, Vicente, L, Lowered national cesarean section rates after a concerted action. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94 (2015), 391–398.
115. Borem, P, Ferreira, JB, da Silva, UJ, Valério, JJ, Orlanda, CM, Increasing the percentage of vaginal birth in the private sector in Brazil through the redesign of care model. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 37 (2015), 446–454 (in Portuguese).
116. Smith, H, Peterson, N, Lagrew, D, Main, EK, Toolkit to support vaginal birth and reduce primary cesareans: a quality improvement toolkit. 2016, California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford, CA https://www.cmqcc.org/VBirthToolkit. (Accessed 17 September 2018)
117. Long, Q, Allanson, ER, Pontre, J, Tuncalp, O, Hofmeyr, GJ, Gulmezoglu, AM, Onsite midwife-led birth units (OMBUs) for care around the time of childbirth: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health, 1, 2016, e000096.
118. Oleske, DM, Glandon, GL, Tancredi, DJ, Nassirpour, M, Noak, JR, Information dissemination and the cesarean birth rate. The Illinois experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 8 (1992), 708–718.
119. Kim, CY, Ko, SK, Kim, KY, Are league tables controlling epidemic of caesarean sections in South Korea?. BJOG 112 (2005), 607–611.
120. Khang, YH, Yun, SC, Jo, MW, Lee, MS, Lee, SI, Public release of institutional Cesarean section rates in South Korea: which women were aware of the information?. Health Policy 86 (2008), 10–16.
121. Shepperd, S, Lewin, S, Straus, S, et al. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?. PLoS Med, 6, 2009, e1000086.
122. Auerbach, AD, Landefeld, CS, Shojania, KG, The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it. N Engl J Med 357 (2007), 608–613.
123. Torloni, MR, Betran, AP, Souza, JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One, 6, 2011, e14566.