Dataset Information

Obstetricians' Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The debate surrounding the optimal caesarean rate has been ongoing for several decades, with the WHO recommending an "acceptable" rate of 5-15% since 1997, despite a weak evidence base. Global expert opinion from obstetric care providers on the optimal caesarean rate has not been documented. The objective of this study was to examine providers' opinions of the optimal caesarean rate worldwide, among all deliveries and within specific sub-groups of deliveries.

Methods

A global online survey of medical doctors who had performed at least one caesarean in the last five years was conducted between August 2013 and January 2014. Respondents were asked to report their opinion of the optimal caesarean rate--defined as the caesarean rate that would minimise poor maternal and perinatal outcomes--at the population level and within specific sub-groups of deliveries (including women with demographic and clinical risk factors for caesareans). Median reported optimal rates and corresponding inter-quartile ranges (IQRs) were calculated for the sample, and stratified according to national caesarean rate, institutional caesarean rate, facility level, and respondent characteristics.

Results

Responses were collected from 1,057 medical doctors from 96 countries. The median reported optimal caesarean rate was 20% (IQR: 15-30%) for all deliveries. Providers in private for-profit facilities and in facilities with high institutional rates reported optimal rates of 30% or above, while those in Europe, in public facilities and in facilities with low institutional rates reported rates of 15% or less. Reported optimal rates were lowest among low-risk deliveries and highest for Absolute Maternal Indications (AMIs), with wide IQRs observed for most categories other than AMIs.

Conclusions

Three-quarters of respondents reported an optimal caesarean rate above the WHO 15% upper threshold. There was substantial variation in responses, highlighting a lack of consensus around which women are in need of a caesarean among obstetric care providers worldwide.

SUBMITTER: Cavallaro FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4816518 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Obstetricians' Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey.

Cavallaro Francesca L FL Cresswell Jenny A JA Ronsmans Carine C

PloS one 20160331 3

<h4>Background</h4>The debate surrounding the optimal caesarean rate has been ongoing for several decades, with the WHO recommending an "acceptable" rate of 5-15% since 1997, despite a weak evidence base. Global expert opinion from obstetric care providers on the optimal caesarean rate has not been documented. The objective of this study was to examine providers' opinions of the optimal caesarean rate worldwide, among all deliveries and within specific sub-groups of deliveries.<h4>Methods</h4>A ...[more]

PMID: 27031516

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean section rates continue to increase worldwide with uncertain medical consequences. Auditing and analysing caesarean section rates and other perinatal outcomes in a reliable and continuous manner is critical for understanding reasons caesarean section changes over time.MethodsWe analyzed data on 97,095 women delivering in 120 facilities in 8 countries, collected as part of the 2004-2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America. The objective of this analysis was to test if the "10-group" or "Robson" classification could help identify which groups of women are contributing most to the high caesarean section rates in Latin America, and if it could provide information useful for health care providers in monitoring and planning effective actions to reduce these rates.ResultsThe overall rate of caesarean section was 35.4%. Women with single cephalic pregnancy at term without previous caesarean section who entered into labour spontaneously (groups 1 and 3) represented 60% of the total obstetric population. Although women with a term singleton cephalic pregnancy with a previous caesarean section (group 5) represented only 11.4% of the obstetric population, this group was the largest contributor to the overall caesarean section rate (26.7% of all the caesarean sections). The second and third largest contributors to the overall caesarean section rate were nulliparous women with single cephalic pregnancy at term either in spontaneous labour (group 1) or induced or delivered by caesarean section before labour (group 2), which were responsible for 18.3% and 15.3% of all caesarean deliveries, respectively.ConclusionThe 10-group classification could be easily applied to a multicountry dataset without problems of inconsistencies or misclassification. Specific groups of women were clearly identified as the main contributors to the overall caesarean section rate. This classification could help health care providers to plan practical and effective actions targeting specific groups of women to improve maternal and perinatal care.

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean section is a lifesaving surgical intervention for women and their newborns, though overutilization is a public health concern. The caesarean rate in Bangladesh is approximately 23% overall, and in private facilities it is over 70%. It is essential to know both the supply side (obstetricians) and demand side (parturient women) views on caesarean birth in order to formulate specific interventions to address the escalating rate of caesareans.MethodsThis qualitative study took place in Matlab, a rural sub-district in Bangladesh. We interviewed women attending their 3rd antenatal visit, those with recent caesareans, and obstetricians from both public and private health facilities. In total there were twenty in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions. Study participants were asked about their preferences on birthing mode and knowledge of the caesarean section process. Thematic data analysis was done following a deductive approach.ResultsWomen from this rural community had a strong preference for normal vaginal birth. However, they were willing to accept the attending health care provider's decision for caesarean birth. Antenatal care sessions did not provide information on the medical indications for caesarean section. Furthermore, some women had the misconception that episiotomy itself is a 'small caesarean.' Primary health care providers and clinic agents (brokers) had a strong influence on women's decision to choose a health facility for giving birth. However, obstetricians, having a preference for caesarean section, were receiving more patients from these brokers which may be an important reason for the high rate of clinically non-indicated caesareans at private hospitals in Bangladesh. Improper labour monitoring and inadequate staffing at health facilities were additional influences on the preference for caesarean section. However, critical knowledge gaps were also observed among study obstetricians, particularly with regards to the indications for and timing of elective caesarean sections.ConclusionThere is a need to educate women about the advantages and disadvantages of different birthing modes to ensure their active participation in the decision making process. Strong policy regulations are needed to ensure legitimate decision making by obstetricians regarding mode of birthing.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence about the "modern epidemic" of overdiagnosis, and expanding disease definitions that medicalize more people, data are lacking on public views about these issues. Our objective was to measure public perceptions about overdiagnosis and views about financial ties of panels setting disease definitions.MethodsWe conducted a 15 minute Computer Assisted Telephone Interview with a randomly selected community sample of 500 Australians in January 2014. We iteratively developed and piloted a questionnaire, with a convenience sample (n=20), then with participants recruited by a research company (n=20). Questions included whether respondents had been informed about overdiagnosis; opinions on informing people; and views about financial ties among panels writing disease definitions.FindingsOur sample was generally representative, but included a higher proportion of females and seniors, typical of similar surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate was 20% and cooperation rate was 44%. Only 10% (95% CI 8%-13%) of people reported ever being told about overdiagnosis by a doctor. 18% (95% CI 11%-28%) of men who reported having prostate cancer screening, and 10% (95% CI 6%-15%) of women who reported having mammography said they were told about overdiagnosis. 93% (95% CI 90%-95%) agreed along with screening benefits, people should be informed about overdiagnosis. On panels setting disease definitions, 78% (95% CI 74%-82%) felt ties to pharmaceutical companies inappropriate, and 91% (95% CI 82%-100%) believed panels should have a minority or no members with ties. Limitations included questionnaire novelty and complexity.ConclusionsA small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions. Results suggest strategies to better inform people about overdiagnosis, and review disease definition processes, have significant public sympathy.

Dataset Information

Obstetricians' Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Obstetricians' Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets