Why 'down under' is a cut above: a comparison of rates of and reasons for caesarean section in England and Australia

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Maggie Redshaw¹  Rachel Thompson³  Yvette D Miller⁴  Samantha J Prosser² 

[1] Policy Research Unit for Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA;School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

关键词: Quality improvement;    Patient-reported data;    Previous caesarean section;    Vaginal birth after caesarean;    Cross-cultural comparison;    Pregnancy;    Childbirth;    Caesarean section;   

Others  :  1127388
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-149

 received in 2014-02-05, accepted in 2014-04-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Most studies examining determinants of rising rates of caesarean section have examined patterns in documented reasons for caesarean over time in a single location. Further insights could be gleaned from cross-cultural research that examines practice patterns in locations with disparate rates of caesarean section at a single time point.

Methods

We compared both rates of and main reason for pre-labour and intrapartum caesarean between England and Queensland, Australia, using data from retrospective cross-sectional surveys of women who had recently given birth in England (n = 5,250) and Queensland (n = 3,467).

Results

Women in Queensland were more likely to have had a caesarean birth (36.2%) than women in England (25.1% of births; OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.61), after adjustment for obstetric characteristics. Between-country differences were found for rates of pre-labour caesarean (21.2% vs. 12.2%) but not for intrapartum caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Compared to women in England, women in Queensland with a history of caesarean were more likely to have had a pre-labour caesarean and more likely to have had an intrapartum caesarean, due only to a previous caesarean. Among women with no previous caesarean, Queensland women were more likely than women in England to have had a caesarean due to suspected disproportion and failure to progress in labour.

Conclusions

The higher rates of caesarean birth in Queensland are largely attributable to higher rates of caesarean for women with a previous caesarean, and for the main reason of having had a previous caesarean. Variation between countries may be accounted for by the absence of a single, comprehensive clinical guideline for caesarean section in Queensland.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Prosser et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J: Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 2011, 38:99-104.
• [2]World Health Organization (WHO): Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2:436-437.
• [3]WHO: Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care: A handbook. Geneva: WHO; 2009. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241547734_eng.pdf?ua=1 webcite
• [4]Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I: Maternal and infant outcome after caesarean section without recorded medical indication: Findings from a Swedish case–control study. BJOG 2013, 120:479-486.
• [5]MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH: Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: Application of an “intention-to-treat” model. Birth 2008, 35:3-8.
• [6]Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P: Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111:97-105.
• [7]Rosen T: Placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy: Overlooked costs of the rising cesarean section rate. Clin Perinatol 2008, 35:519-529.
• [8]Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, Miodovnik M, Carpenter M, Peaceman AM, O’Sullivan MJ, Sibai B, Langer O, Thorp JM, Ramin SM, Mercer BM: Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat caesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 107:1226-1232.
• [9]Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, Evans SR, Kotelchuck M, Simon C, Weiss J, Heffner LJ: Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:669-677.
• [10]McIntyre MJ, Chapman Y, Francis K: Hidden costs associated with universal application of risk management in maternity care. Aust Health Rev 2011, 35:211-215.
• [11]Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L, O’Connell CM, Allen VM, Chandra S, Allen AC: Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 102:791-800.
• [12]Janssens S, Wallace KL, Chang AMZ: Prepartum and intrapartum caesarean section rates at Mater Mothers’ Hospital Brisbane 1997–2005. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008, 48:564-569.
• [13]O’Leary CM, de Klerk N, Keogh J, Pennell C, de Groot J, York L, Mulroy S, Stanley FJ: Trends in mode of delivery during 1984–2003: Can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications? BJOG 2007, 114:855-864.
• [14]Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW, Morris JM, Roberts CL: Epidemiology and trends for caesarean section births in New South Wales Australia: A population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 11:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Thompson H: Caesarean section at maternal request: An update. Br J Midwifery 2012, 20:98-103.
• [16]Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K: Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108:1506-1516.
• [17]Menacker F, Declercq E, MacDorman MF: Caesarean delivery: Background, trends and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol 2006, 30:235-241.
• [18]Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL: Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118:29-38.
• [19]Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S, Herrlich A: Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Childbirth. New York: Childbirth Connection; 2013.
• [20]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 2000, 356:1375-1383.
• [21]NICE: NICE Clinical Guideline 132 - Caesarean Section. 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13620/57163/57163.pdf webcite
• [22]Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity: Annual Report for the Year 2009. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria; 2012. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ccopmm/publications.htm webcite
• [23]Howell S, Johnston T, MacLeod SL: Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 49:606-611.
• [24]HES online: NHS Maternity Statistics 2009–10. NHS, The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2010. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=114&q=%22nhs+maternity+statistics%22&topics=0%2fHospital+care&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1#top webcite
• [25]Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, Sullivan EA: Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2010. Perinatal statistics series no. 27. Cat. no. PER 57. AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit: Canberra; 2012.
• [26]Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Clinical Guidelines Program: Vaginal Birth After Caesarean (VBAC): Document number MN09.12-V3-R14. Brisbane: Queensland Government; 2009. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qcg/documents/g_vbac5-1.pdf webcite
• [27]RANZCOG: College statement - C-Obs 11: Management of Breech Presentation at Term. 2013. http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/doc/breech-management-term.html webcite
• [28]RANZCOG: College statement - C-Obs 39: Caesarean Delivery on Maternal Request (CDMR). 2010. http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/component/docman/doc_view/972-c-obs-39-caesarean-delivery-on-maternal-request-cdmr.html?Itemid=341 webcite
• [29]RANZCOG: College statement – C-Obs 51: Management of Hepatitis C in Pregnancy. 2013. http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/doc/management-of-hepatitis-c-in-pregnancy.html webcite
• [30]Bat-Erdene U, Metcalfe A, McDonald SW, Tough SC: Validation of Canadian mothers’ recall of events in labour and delivery with electronic health records. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013, 13(Suppl 1):S3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Gartland D, Lansakara N, Flood M, Brown SJ: Assessing obstetric risk factors for maternal morbidity: Congruity between medical records and mothers’ reports of obstetric exposures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206:152. e1-10
• [32]Rice F, Lewis A, Harold G, van den Bree M, Boivin J, Hay DF: Agreement between maternal report and antenatal records for a range of pre and peri-natal factors: The influence of maternal and child characteristics. Early Hum Dev 2006, 83:497-504.
• [33]Mould TAJ, Chong S, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S: Women’s involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996, 103:1074-1077.
• [34]Redshaw M, Heikkila K: Delivered with Care: A National Survey of Women’s Experience of Maternity Care 2010. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2010. https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/maternitysurveys webcite
• [35]Miller YD, Thompson R, Porter J, Prosser SJ: Findings from the Having a Baby in Queensland Survey, 2010: Supplementary materials 1. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, The University of Queensland; 2011. http://www.qcmb.org.au/technical-reports-and-supplementary-materials webcite
• [36]Miller YD, Thompson R, Porter J, Prosser SJ: Findings from the Having a Baby in Queensland Survey, 2010. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, The University of Queensland; 2011. http://www.qcmb.org.au/reports/menu/publications_downloads webcite
• [37]Thompson R, Miller YD: Birth control: To what extent do Australian women report being informed and involved in decisions about pregnancy and birth procedures? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14:62. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]NICE: NICE Clinical Guideline 13 - Caesarean Section. London; 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG013quickrefguide.pdf webcite
• [39]RANZCOG: Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section – A Guide for Women. Camberwell, Australia: Mi-tec Publishing; 2002. http://www.mitec.com.au/shop/product/3582/167/vaginal-birth-after-caesarean-section webcite
• [40]NICE: NICE Clinical Guideline 55 – Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and their Babies during Childbirth. London; 2007. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11837/36280/36280.pdf webcite
• [41]Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Clinical Guidelines Program (QMNCGP): Normal Birth: Document Number MN12.25-V1-R17. Brisbane: Queensland Government; 2012. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qcg/documents/g_normbirth.pdf webcite
• [42]Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O’Herlihy C: Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 201:308.e1-8.
• [43]D’Souza R, Arulkumaran S: To ‘C’ or not to ‘C’? J Perinat Med 2013, 41:5-15.
• [44]Gamble J, Creedy DK, McCourt C, Weaver J, Beake S: A critique of the literature on women’s request for cesarean section. Birth 2007, 34:331-340.
• [45]Health Statistics Unit: Perinatal Data Collection - Births by Accoucher and Facility Type, Queensland 2009 to 2011. Brisbane: Department of Health; 2013.
• [46]Miller YD, Prosser SJ, Thompson R: Going public: Do risk and choice explain differences in caesarean birth rates between public and private places of birth in Australia? Midwifery 2012, 28:627-635.
• [47]Quigley MA, Hockley C, Davidson LL: Agreement between hospital records and maternal recall of mode of delivery: Evidence from 12,391 deliveries in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. BJOG 2007, 114:195-200.
• [48]Brown S, Darcy MA, Bruinsma F: Having a baby in Victoria 1989–2000: Continuity and change in the decade following the Victorian Ministerial Review of Birthing Services. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002, 26:242-250.
• [49]Brown S, Lumley J: The 1993 survey of recent mothers: Issues in survey design, analysis and influencing policy. Int J Qual Health Care 1997, 9:265-275.