Dataset Information

What is an appropriate caesarean delivery rate for China: a multicentre survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the current status of caesarean delivery (CD) in China, propose reference CD rates for China overall, and by regions, investigate the main indications for CDs and identify possible areas for safe reduction.

Design

A multicentre cross-sectional study.

Setting

A total of 94 hospitals across 23 provinces in China.

Population

A total of 73 977 randomly selected deliveries.

Methods

We used a modified Robson classification to characterise CDs in subgroups and by regions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) C-Model to calculate reference CD rates.

Main outcome measures

CD rates in China.

Results

In 2015-2016, the overall CD rate in China was 38.9% (95% CI 38.6-39.3%). Considering the obstetric characteristics of the population, the multivariable model-based reference CD rate was estimated at 28.5% (95% CI 28.3-28.8%). Accordingly, an absolute reduction of 10.4% (or 26.7% relative reduction) may be considered. The CD rate varied substantially by region. Previous CD was the most common indication in all regions, accounting for 38.2% of all CDs, followed by maternal request (9.8%), labour dystocia (8.3%), fetal distress (7.7%) and malpresentation (7.6%). Overall, 12.7% of women had prelabour CDs, contributing to 32.8% of the total CDs.

Conclusions

Nearly 39% of births were delivered by caesarean in China but a reduction of this rate by a quarter may be considered attainable. Repeat CD contributed more than one-third of the total CDs. Given the large variation in maternal characteristics, region-specific or even hospital-specific reference CD rates are needed for precision management of CD.

Tweetable abstract

The caesarean rate in 2015-2016 in China was 38.9%, whereas the reference rate was 28.5%.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9297886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsResponses 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.ConclusionsThree-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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify obstetrical subgroups in which (1) the caesarean delivery (CD) rate may be reduced without compromising safety and (2) CD may be associated with better perinatal outcomes.DesignA multicentre cross-sectional study.Setting19 hospitals in the USA that participated in the Consortium on Safe Labor.Participants228?562 pregnant women in 2002-2008.Main outcome measuresMaternal and neonatal safety was measured using the individual Weighted Adverse Outcome Score.MethodsWomen were divided into 10 subgroups according to a modified Robson classification system. Generalised estimated equation model was used to examine the relationships between mode of delivery and Weighted Adverse Outcome Score in each subgroup.ResultsThe overall caesarean rate was 31.2%. Repeat CD contributed 29.5% of all CD, followed by nulliparas with labour induction (15.3%) and non-cephalic presentation (14.3%). The caesarean rates in induced nulliparas with a term singleton cephalic pregnancy and women with previous CD were 31.6% and 82.0%, respectively. CD had no clinically meaningful association with perinatal outcomes in most subgroups. However, in singleton preterm breech presentation and preterm twin gestation with the first twin in non-cephalic presentation, CD was associated with substantially improved maternal and perinatal outcomes.ConclusionsWomen with repeat CD, term non-cephalic presentation, term twins or other multiple gestation and preterm births may be the potential targets for safely reducing prelabour CD rate, while nulliparas or multiparas with spontaneous or induced labour, women with repeat CD, term non-cephalic presentation, term twins or other multiple gestation and preterm births are potential targets for reducing intrapartum CD rate without compromising maternal and neonatal safety in the USA. On the other hand, CD may still be associated with better perinatal outcomes in women with singleton preterm breech presentation or preterm twins with the first twin in non-cephalic presentation.

Project description:BackgroundChina has one of the highest caesarean section (C-Section) rates in the world. In recent years, China has been experiencing a massive flow of migration due to rapid urbanization. In this study, we aimed to differentiate the rates of C-Section between migrants and residents, and explore any possible factors which may moderate the association between migrant status and C-Section rates.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in Shanghai, China. All deliveries were classified using the modified Robson Classification. The association between women's migrant status and C-Section rates was assessed using the Poisson regression of sandwich estimation, after adjusting for possible factors.ResultsOf the 40,621 women included in the study, 66.9% were residents and 33.1% were internal migrants. The rate of C-Section in migrants was lower than that of residents in all subjects (39.9 and 47.7%) and in group 1 subjects (based on the Robson Classification) using a modified Robson Classification. There was an association between migrant status and caesarean delivery on maternal request that was statistically significant (RR = 0.664, p < 0.001), but the association was weakened after adjusting for such factors as maternal age at delivery (aRR = 0.774, p = 0.02), ethnicity (aRR = 0.753, p < 0.001), health insurance (aRR = 0.755, p < 0.001), and occupation (aRR = 0.747, p = 0.004), but had no significant changes when adjusting for health conditions (aRR = 0.668, p = 0.001) and all considering variables (aRR = 0.697, p = 0.002). In group 1 subjects, the effect of migrant status on maternal requested intrapartum C-Section was also statistically significant (RR = 0.742, p = 0.004).ConclusionC-Section rates are lower among migrant women than residents, especially on maternal request. The medical practitioners should further reinforce the management of elective C-Section in resident women.

Project description:BackgroundAbout a third of women experience severe back pain during labour. Injecting small volumes of intracutaneous sterile water into the lumbar region can be used to relieve this pain, however the procedure is controversial and previous reviews call for high quality trials to establish efficacy. We evaluated the impact on birth outcomes and analgesic effects of sterile water injections.MethodsA multicentre, double-blind trial undertaken between December 2012 and December 2017 in one British and 15 Australian maternity units. Women experiencing severe back-pain in labour were assigned (1:1) by an independently generated randomisation schedule stratified by site to injections of either sterile water or saline placebo. Participants and caregivers were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was caesarean delivery rate. Main secondary outcomes included at least 30% or 50% reduction in self-reported pain scores at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after treatment. Intention to treat analysis were used and the level of significance for the multiple clinical outcomes was set at p<0.001 with the Bonferroni correction applied. The study is registered with the ACTRN Registry number, ACTRN1261100022195.FindingsBetween December 9, 2012, and December 15, 2017, 1166 women were recruited and randomised: 587 women received sterile water injections (SWI) and 579 a saline placebo. Seven women in the SWI group and 12 in the placebo group were excluded as consent was not completed, leaving 580 and 567, respectively, included in the analysis. The proportions of caesarean delivery were 17·1% (82 of 580) in the SWI group and 14·8% (82 of 567) in the placebo (RR 1·16, 95% CI 0·88-1.51; p = 0·293). At 30 min post treatment 60·8% (330 of 543) of women in the SWI group reported a 30% reduction in self-reported pain compared to 31·4% (163 of 520) placebo (RR 1·94, 95% CI 1·68-2·24; p=<0·001) and 43·3% (235 of 534) SWI reported a 50% reduction versus 18·1% (94 of 520) placebo (RR 2·39, 95% CI 1·95-2·94; p=<0·001). The analgesic effect of SWI compared to placebo remained significant at 60 and 90 min post-treatment. There were no significant differences in other maternal or neonatal outcomes.InterpretationCompared to placebo, injections of sterile water did not reduce rates of caesarean delivery. For the main secondary outcome of pain relief the intervention did result in significantly more women reporting at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain for up to 90 min. Water injections have no effect on birth outcomes though can be an effective treatment for the relief of labour-related back pain.Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.