Achievement of appropriate cesarean rates using Robson's 10-Group classification system in Brazilian private practice.
Cesarean section rates
Health Care Models
Humanized childbirth
Patient-centered care, evidence-based practice
Robson classification.
Supplementary health
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2023
10 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
24
11
2021
accepted:
21
06
2023
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
11
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Increasing cesarean section (CS) rates are a global concern because they are related to higher maternal and neonatal complication rates and do not provide positive childbirth experiences. In 2019, Brazil ranked second globally, given its overall CS rate of 57%. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), populational CS rates of 10-15% are associated with decreased maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality rates. This study aimed to investigate whether multidisciplinary care following evidence-based protocols associated with a high motivation of both women and professionals for a vaginal birth leads to less overuse of CS in a Brazilian private practice (PP). This cross-sectional study evaluated CS rates by Robson group for women who sought vaginal birth in a private practice in Brazil comparing with Swedish data. Collaborative care of midwives and obstetricians who adopted evidence-based guidelines was offered. CS rates, overall and by Robson group, contribution of each Robson group to the overall CS rate, clinical and nonclinical interventions, vaginal birth, pre-labor CS, and intrapartum CS proportions were estimated. The expected CS rate was calculated using the World Health Organization C-model tool. The analysis used Microsoft Excel and R Studio (version 1.2.1335. 2009-2019). The PP overall CS rate was 15.1% (95%CI, 13.4-17.1%) versus the 19.8% (95%CI, 14.8-24.7%) rate expected by the WHO C-model tool. The population included 43.7% women in Robson Group 1 (nulliparous, single, cephalic, at term, spontaneous labor), 11.4% in Group 2 (nulliparous, single, cephalic, at term, induced labor or CS before labor), and 14.9% in Group 5 (multiparous women with previous CS), the greatest contributors to higher CS rates (75.4% of them). The Swedish overall CS rate was 17.9% (95%CI, 17.6-18.1%) in a population of 27% women in Robson Group 1, 10.7% in Group 2, and 9.2% in Group 5. Multidisciplinary care following evidence-based protocols, associated with high motivation of both women and professionals for vaginal birth, may lead to a significant and safe reduction of CS rates even in contexts such as Brazil, with high medicalization of obstetric care and excess CS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Increasing cesarean section (CS) rates are a global concern because they are related to higher maternal and neonatal complication rates and do not provide positive childbirth experiences. In 2019, Brazil ranked second globally, given its overall CS rate of 57%. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), populational CS rates of 10-15% are associated with decreased maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality rates. This study aimed to investigate whether multidisciplinary care following evidence-based protocols associated with a high motivation of both women and professionals for a vaginal birth leads to less overuse of CS in a Brazilian private practice (PP).
METHODS
METHODS
This cross-sectional study evaluated CS rates by Robson group for women who sought vaginal birth in a private practice in Brazil comparing with Swedish data. Collaborative care of midwives and obstetricians who adopted evidence-based guidelines was offered. CS rates, overall and by Robson group, contribution of each Robson group to the overall CS rate, clinical and nonclinical interventions, vaginal birth, pre-labor CS, and intrapartum CS proportions were estimated. The expected CS rate was calculated using the World Health Organization C-model tool. The analysis used Microsoft Excel and R Studio (version 1.2.1335. 2009-2019).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The PP overall CS rate was 15.1% (95%CI, 13.4-17.1%) versus the 19.8% (95%CI, 14.8-24.7%) rate expected by the WHO C-model tool. The population included 43.7% women in Robson Group 1 (nulliparous, single, cephalic, at term, spontaneous labor), 11.4% in Group 2 (nulliparous, single, cephalic, at term, induced labor or CS before labor), and 14.9% in Group 5 (multiparous women with previous CS), the greatest contributors to higher CS rates (75.4% of them). The Swedish overall CS rate was 17.9% (95%CI, 17.6-18.1%) in a population of 27% women in Robson Group 1, 10.7% in Group 2, and 9.2% in Group 5.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multidisciplinary care following evidence-based protocols, associated with high motivation of both women and professionals for vaginal birth, may lead to a significant and safe reduction of CS rates even in contexts such as Brazil, with high medicalization of obstetric care and excess CS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37430192
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05803-2
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05803-2
pmc: PMC10332037
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
504Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2016 Jul;61(4):408-10
pubmed: 27352212
BJOG. 2014 Mar;121 Suppl 1:1-4
pubmed: 24641529
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Jul 10;23(1):504
pubmed: 37430192
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021 Feb 26;45:e16
pubmed: 33643399
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012 Sep;39(3):323-34
pubmed: 22963692
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):427-36
pubmed: 26259689
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Jan 8;100(1):e24176
pubmed: 33429803
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 May;3(5):e260-70
pubmed: 25866355
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2020 Sep;42(9):522-528
pubmed: 32559791
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;143(3):351-359
pubmed: 30182481
Reprod Health. 2016 Oct 17;13(Suppl 3):114
pubmed: 27766983
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 May;96(5):607-616
pubmed: 28176334
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1358-1368
pubmed: 30322586
Lancet. 2016 Oct 29;388(10056):2176-2192
pubmed: 27642019
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012 Sep;39(3):373-82
pubmed: 22963697
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Apr;27(2):297-308
pubmed: 23127896
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012 Sep;39(3):411-22
pubmed: 22963700
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Aug 30;21(1):589
pubmed: 34461851
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 06;7:CD003766
pubmed: 28681500
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(17):e19880
pubmed: 32332659
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Apr;137(1):40-44
pubmed: 28099759