Does a Caesarean section increase the time to a second live birth? A register-based cohort study.

Day 2 embryo transfer (ET) and day 3 ET afford similar reproductive outcomes in the poor responder

Cesarean delivery on maternal request is one of the important public health issues in China. Our study aimed to apply the theory of planned behaviour to comprehensively determine the factors regarding pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and to provide references for establishing measures to reduce cesarean delivery on maternal request. This cross-sectional analysis was conducted in four women's and children's hospitals in China from May to June 2018. Eligible women arriving for routine antenatal visits at these hospitals were recruited to answer a structured questionnaire. A total of 1853 pregnant women consented to participate in the investigation, with a response rate of 88.75%. Finally, 1677 pregnant women (984 nulliparae and 693 multiparae) were involved in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used. Of the study participants, 20.39% preferred cesarean section. For both nulliparae and multiparae, those who had lower scores of attitudes towards vaginal delivery, lower scores of childbirth self-efficacy and higher scores of subjective norms were more likely to prefer cesarean section. Pregnant women's birth preferences were significantly associated with their attitudes towards the delivery mode, childbirth self-efficacy and subjective norms, which is consistent with the theory of planned behaviour. Interventions to reduce cesarean delivery on maternal request can be developed based on the theory of planned behaviour.

This study examined physicians' propensity for caesarean deliveries at solo versus group practice obstetrics/gynaecology (ob/gyn) clinics in Taiwan. We used population-based (National Health Insurance) claims data covering all 253 618 singleton deliveries conducted at ob/gyn clinics, during 2000-02. The dependent variable, delivery mode, was treated as dichotomous [caesarean section (CS) = 1, vaginal delivery (VD) = 0]. The independent variable of interest was practice size, classified into four categories: 1, 2, 3 and 4+ physicians. Multilevel logistic regression modelling, accounting for clinic-level variation in CS rates, was used to examine CS likelihood by practice size, among the total delivery sample and among the sub-samples disaggregated by obstetric complication status. Solo practices have 7% excess caesarean cases relative to large group practices. After controlling for patient's age, physician demographics, the clinic's geographic location and size of delivery service, and clinic-level random effect, solo practice physicians were 5.38 times as likely as 4+ physician practices to provide caesarean delivery (CI = 4.18 approximately 6.93), 2-physician practices were 3.87 times (CI = 2.99 approximately 5.01) and 3-physician practices 2.72 times (CI = 2.06 approximately 3.59) as likely as 4+ physician practices to provide caesarean delivery. This effect is driven by higher CS propensity among solo and small groups among cases with obstetrically less salient complications and the 'no complications' subset of patients. Wide confidence intervals for odds ratios in these sub-samples also attest to wide variations in clinic-level CS rates among these patient groups. Solo physicians are the most likely to provide caesarean delivery, and CS likelihood decreases with increasing number of physicians in the practice. Group practice support may reduce the CS likelihood, when it is not clinically indicated. Policy makers should consider initiatives to limit full service delivery privileges to group practice obstetric clinics, in order to reduce unnecessary CS. Solo practice clinics should, at best, be licensed as birthing centres, required to transfer patients needing CS to a larger facility.

In 1985 when a group of experts convened by the World Health Organization in Fortaleza, Brazil, met to discuss the appropriate technology for birth, they echoed what at that moment was considered an unjustified and remarkable increase of caesarean section (CS) rates worldwide.1 Based on the evidence available at that time, the experts in Fortaleza concluded: 'there is no justification for any region to have a caesarean section rate higher than 10–15%'.1 Over the years, this quote has become ubiquitous in scientific literature, being interpreted as the ideal CS rate. Although this reference range was intended for 'populations', which are defined by geopolitical boundaries, in many instances it has been mistakenly used as the measurement for healthcare facilities regardless of their complexity or other characteristics. In addition to the case mix of the obstetric population served, the use of CS at healthcare facilities is also affected by factors such as their capacity to handle cases, availability of resource and the clinical management protocols used locally. Since its publication and for the last 30 years, this reference rate for CS has received intense criticism and has led to controversy, concern, polarised opinions and heated debates, while in parallel, the use of CS as a mode of delivery has continued its worrying rise worldwide. The need to revisit the recommended CS rate has been considered more and more necessary in view of the significant improvements in clinical obstetric care and in the methodology to assess evidence and issue recommendations in the last three decades. The global concern around CS rates is understandable. When medically justified, a CS can prevent maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There is no evidence, however, showing the benefits of the procedure for women or infants where it is not required. CS is associated with short- and long-term risk, which can extend beyond the current delivery and affect future pregnancies. In addition, the increase in CS rates seems uncontrollable, with no signs that it is slowing down. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the causes of the rise are not fully understood but emerge as a complex multifactorial labyrinth involving health systems, health care providers, women, societies, and even fashion and media.2-6 Lastly, non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary CS have shown limited effectiveness to date.7 In light of these issues, WHO convened a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on 8–9 October 2014 with the objective of (1) establishing the current WHO position on the CS rate or range for optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes at population level, and (2) agreeing on a proposal for a tool to monitor CS rates at facility level. The Statement on Caesarean Section Rates recently released by WHO summarises the results of the systematic reviews and analyses conducted for this purpose and conveys the thinking emerging from the discussions of the meeting.8 A systematic review and an ecological analysis were performed and concluded that at population level, CS rates higher than 10% were not associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality rates.9, 10 The Statement notes, however, that the association between CS rates and other relevant outcomes such as stillbirths, maternal and perinatal morbidity, paediatric outcomes and psychological or social well-being could not be determined due to the lack of data on these other outcomes at the population level. This lack of data represents a limitation of these analyses that needs to be borne in mind. Beyond numbers and rates, the Statement emphasises that the critical role played by the quality of care in this equation cannot be overstated. As with any surgery, CS is associated with short- and long-term risks, particularly in settings that lack the facilities or capacity to conduct safe surgery or treat surgical complications properly, or where access to labour care or repeat CS in subsequent pregnancies cannot be taken for granted. On the other hand, inadequate access to timely CS may result in perinatal asphyxia, stillbirth, uterine rupture or obstetric fistula, a marker for exceptionally prolonged, obstructed labour.11 Thus, CS should be undertaken when medically necessary, and rather than striving to achieve a specific rate, efforts should focus on providing caesarean section to all women in need. How to define the woman 'in need' can only be ascertained by the health care providers caring for the woman on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, at the healthcare facility level, clinicians and administrators struggle to monitor CS rates in a meaningful, reliable and action-oriented manner. Historically, caesarean sections have often been categorised using its indications as the unit being classified. Using indications to classify CS has always been problematic due to the lack of uniform definitions for most common indications and has resulted in poor reproducibility and unsatisfactory comparisons.12 In 2001, Dr Michael Robson proposed a system of 10 groups that classifies all women admitted for delivery (and not indications) according to five obstetric characteristics that are generally routinely collected in most maternities.13 Two systematic reviews conducted at WHO identified this classification as the most appropriate system to fulfil current international and local needs.12, 14 The WHO Statement proposes the use of the Robson classification as the global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing CS rates within healthcare facilities over time, and between facilities. In the last decade, this classification has witnessed an extraordinary expansion in its use worldwide, particularly in healthcare facilities, due to its intrinsic appealing characteristics: simplicity of design, validity of purpose, ease of implementation and directness of initial interpretation.14 WHO envisions that the information stemming from the classification can be a powerful tool to inform practice. The classification will allow not only for stratification of CS rates in more uniform groups of women but also the assessment of CS rates in relation to other perinatal outcomes and processes (e.g. rates of oxytocin usage, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn outcomes, length of labour). WHO will guide and support countries in the use, implementation and interpretation of the classification so that we can start comparing CS rates in a meaningful, targeted, transparent and useful manner. By endorsing the Robson classification, this Statement should become a catalyst for action. The time has come to put the debate about the preferable rate of CS on hold. Let's start to collect data uniformly so that in the near future we will be able to move our focus from CS rates at population level to monitoring and discussing CS rates and outcomes in each group of the Robson classification. Only then will we have the data and evidence that will lead us more clearly to actions to improve care.15 Ultimately, we hope the debate can recommence with more valuable, solid and informative data to support our discussions. None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information. All authors contributed to the writing of the commentary. This commentary has been written without any external funding. No ethical approval was sought for the writing of this commentary. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the World Health Organization or other organizations. WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section: HA Aleem (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health Center, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt), F Althabe (Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina), T Bergholt (Department of Obstetrics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark), L de Bernis (United Nations Population Fund, Geneva, Switzerland), G Carroli (Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina), C Deneux-Tharaux (INSERM U1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France), R Devlieger (UZLeuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leuven, Belgium), S Debonnet (International Confederation of Midwives, 2517 AN The Hague, the Netherlands), T Duan (Shanghai No.1 Maternal & Infant Health Hospital, Shanghai, China), C Hanson [International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO), London, UK], J Hofmeyr (Department of Health, Effective Care Research Unit, University of Fort Hare, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa), R Gonzalez Pérez (Department of Maternal and Gynaecological Health, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile), A de Jonge (Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO Institute of Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), K Khan (Women's Health Research Unit, Multi-disciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, The Blizard Institute, London, UK), S Lansky (Ministry of Health, Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais, Brazil), G Lazdane (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark), P Lumbiganon (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand), D Mackeen (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Geisimger Health System, Danville, PA, USA), R Mahaini (WHO Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Cairo, Egypt), S Manyame (Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Harare Hospital & University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe), M Mathai (Department of Maternal and Child Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland), R Mikolajczyk (ESME – Epidemiological and Statistical Methods Research Group, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany), R Mori (Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan), B De Mucio (Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health (CLAP/WR), WHO Regional Office for the Americas, Montevideo, Uruguay), OT Oladapo (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), E Ortiz-Panozo (Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico), L Ouedraogo (WHO Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo), C Parker (Obstetrics and Gyneacology Department, Baragwanath Maternity Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa), M Robson (National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland), S Serruya (Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health (CLAP/WR), WHO Regional Office for the Americas, Montevideo, Uruguay), JP Souza [Department of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil], CY Spong (Deputy Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA), C Stanton (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA), ME Stanton (USAID, Washington DC, USA), EA Sullivan (Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia), M Temmerman (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), A Tita (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA), Ӧ Tunçalp (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), P Velebil (Perinatal Center of the Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic), JP Vogel (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), M Weber (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark), D Wojdyla (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA), J Ye (Ministry of Education–Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children's Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China), K Yunis (Department of Pediatrics & Adolescent, Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon), J Zamora (Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain), A Zongo (Research Institute for Development, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMR 216, Paris, France and Direction de la santé de la famille, Ministère de la Santé, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

A call for better data for surveillance and evaluation of caesarean sections in Europe - A joint statement by Euro-Peristat and European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG).

The study assessed the value of currently-available data on the rates of caesarean section as an indicator of safe-motherhood programmes. Data, collected through the routine health information system of the Ministry of Health, Kenya, were used for analyzing the available process indicators. The methodology of this study illustrates both usefulness and limitations of readily-available healthcare information. The rate of hospital-based caesarean section was 6.3% of all births (range 0.3-37%), whereas the rate of population-based caesarean section was 0.95% (range 0.1%-4%). The rate of population-based caesarean section indicates a significant unmet need for obstetric care in the rural areas and may be a useful tool for monitoring progress on safe-motherhood initiatives in poor settings. Rates of population-based caesarean section are low in Kenya, especially in the rural areas. The rate of caesarean section may be a valuable process indicator for identifying the gaps in obstetric care and may be used for advocating improvements for healthcare to the relevant authorities.

Caesarean section (CS) rates have risen over the past two decades. The aim of this observational study was to identify time-dependent variations in CS and vaginal delivery rates over a period of 11 years. All deliveries (13,701 deliveries during the period 1999-2009) at the University Women's Hospital Bern were analysed using an internationally standardised and approved ten-group classification system. Caesarean sections on maternal request (CSMR) were evaluated separately. We detected an overall CS rate of 36.63% and an increase in the CS rate over time (p <0.001). Low-risk profile groups were the two largest populations and displayed low CS rates, with significantly decreasing relative size over time. The relative size of groups with induced labour increased significantly, but this did not have an impact on the overall CS rate. Pregnancies complicated by breech position, multiple pregnancies and abnormal lies did not have an impact on overall CS rate. The biggest contributor to a high CS rate was preterm delivery and the existence of a uterine scar from a previous CS. CSMR was 1.45% and did not have an impact on the overall CS rate. The observational study identified wide variations in caesarean section and vaginal delivery rates across the groups over time, and a shift towards high-risk populations was noted. The biggest contributors to high CS rates were identified; namely, previous uterine scar and preterm delivery. Interventions aiming to reduce CS rates are planned.

Objective To explore the effect of epidural block for labor analgesia on the rate of Cesarean section after parturiency.Methods We summaried 2,885 pregnant women who gave full-term childbirth in our hospital in the years of 1999 and 2009.We analyzed variation of the rate of epidural block for labor analgesia and Cesarean section.The latter included the variation of the total rate of Cesarean section and of the rate of Cesarean section failing to deliver after parturiency.Results The rate of epidural block for labor analgesia was 17.99％ in 1999 but 51.23％ in 2009.The rate of Cesarean section was 40.80％ in 1999 but 27.81％ in 2009.There were significant differences in the rates of epidural block for labor analgesia and Cesarean section between the two years( P＜ 0.001 ).The rate of Cesarean section failing to deliver after parturiency was 6.78％ in 1999 and 3.78％ in 2009,with a significant difference ( P＜ 0.05 ).The average time to parturiency to Cesarean section and the average degree of cervical dilatation were both increased.The average time to parturiency to Cesarean section was ( 164.11 ± 55.35 ) minutes and the dilation degree was ( 5.3 ± 2.05 ) cm in 1999 while it was ( 284.50 ± 84.66 ) minutes and ( 7.0 ± 1.83 ) cm in 2009,respectively; there was a significant difference between the two years ( P ＜ 0.05 ).The rates of ephalic dystocia and Cesarean section because of social factors were decreased after epidural block for labor analgesia.Conclusions Epidural block for labor analgesia can decrease the rates of Cesarean section and cephalic dystocia. Key words: Epidural block for labor analgesia; Rate of Cesarean section; Rate of Cesarean section after parturiency

BackgroundMedically unjustifiable caesarean section (CS) deliveries have been rising rapidly in many developed countries over the last three decades. While many developing countries show rates beyond optimal levels, few poorer countries appear to have sub-optimal obstetric care in relation to essential surgeries. The objective of this study is to document the rates of CS delivery, its time trend, and geographic and sociodemographic variability in Sudan.MethodsWe utilized a number of Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) conducted in 2014, 2010, and 2006 to quantify CS rates per 1000 live births. We also documented absolute changes in rates over three-time points and variation in CS rates across geographic regions and areas of residence.ResultsOver a decade, CS rates in Sudan increased steadily from 4.3% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2010 and 9.1% in 2014. During this period, CS rates varied considerably across regions showing higher rates in the Northern region (7–25%) and lower rates in Darfur (2–3%). Urban areas experienced rapidly increasing rates (6–14%), while rural areas showed negligible changes to absolute CS rates over time (5–7%). We also found geographic regions, maternal age, maternal education, receiving antenatal care, and birth order of the child were important determinants of CS in Sudan.ConclusionSudan may be facing a double burden of problems associated with surgical interventions for childbirth. While the wealthier parts of Sudan are experiencing a rapid surge in CS, some poor parts of rural Sudan may not be getting the essential surgical intervention for birth when mandated. Urgent improvement to obstetric care and the development of appropriate public health interventions that focus on regional disparities are warranted.

Cyprus has Europe's highest rate of births by caesarean section (CS). In 2015 56% of all babies were born by CS. This compares with 36% in Italy, and 16% in Iceland, which is among the lowest rates in Europe. There is some evidence that CS rates are partly driven by maternal request and media representation. The aim of this review is to explore the depiction of childbirth by CS in the media, and more specifically in newspapers, television, web and informational leaflets in Cyprus, Italy and Iceland. A thematic review of the depiction of CS in the media of Cyprus, Italy and Iceland was carried out through an examination of newspapers, television, web, and informational material published or presented in the included countries in 2017. Materials were identified by searches in PubMed and Google Scholar, using pre-determined key words, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and inclusion was agreed by at least two of the authors. Key themes in each data source were triangulated with each other and between the three countries. The review comprised 81 articles, 10 videos, six birth shows, two informational leaflets and one scientific paper. The central themes were: 1) CS as risky and unnecessary intervention, failure of maternity system; 2) CS as a necessary, life-saving intervention; 3) the ethical dimensions of CS; 4) the changing landscape of childbirth and medicalization; and 5) informed choices. In both Cyprus and Italy, the media focus was on a need to reduce high levels of CS. The focus in Iceland was on normal birth and midwife led care. The differing media messages in the three countries could partly explain the differing CS rates, suggesting that high CS rates are a social phenomenon, rather than a result of clinical need. The media may have a significant influence on the beliefs and choices of maternity service users, their families, and society in general, as well as health professionals and policy makers. Those working in the media have an ethical responsibility to critically examine the impact of high national CS rates, and to report on solutions that could optimize both the safety and the wellbeing of mothers and babies.

Objective To assess changes in caesarean section (CS) in Europe from 2015-2019 and utilise the Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) to evaluate the contribution of different obstetric populations to overall CS rates and trends Methods This was an observational study utilising routine population birth data from 28 European countries participating in the Euro-Peristat network. We included all births ≥22 weeks gestational age, from 2015 to 2019. A federated model used individual-level data from routine sources in each country formatted to common data model to generate anonymous, aggregate data tables on yearly CS rates and the Robson TGCS classification. We computed the Robson group-specific relative size, CS rate, relative and absolute contribution to overall CS rate Results Among the 28 European countries, CS rates (2015: 16.0-55.9%; 2019: 16.0-52.2%) and trends varied (-3.7-+4.7%; 9 countries decreasing, 7 stable [ ≤ ±0.2], 12 increasing). Using the Robson Classification (17 countries), in most countries, labour induction increased (Groups 2a, 4a), while multiple pregnancies (Group 8) decreased. In countries with decreasing overall CS rates, CS tended to decrease in most Robson groups, while in countries with increasing overall CS rates, CS tended to increase in most Robson groups. In countries with the greatest increase in CS rates (&amp;gt;1%), absolute contributions of Groups 1 (nulliparous term cephalic singletons, spontaneous labour), 2a and 4a, 2b and 4b (prelabour CS), and 10 (preterm cephalic singletons) to overall CS tended to increase. Conclusions Analysis of the Robson Classification shows varying CS trends and rates across Europe. Comparisons between European countries, particularly those with divergent trends, could provide insight into strategies to reduce CS without indication.

BackgroundThere remains a considerable concern among both patients and oncologists that having a live birth (LB) after breast cancer might adversely impact survival. Methodsanalysis of survival in a national cohort of women with breast cancer diagnosed at age 20–39 years between 1981 and 2017 (n = 5181), and subsequent LB using Scottish Cancer Registry and national maternity records. Cases had at least one subsequent LB, each was matched with up to six unexposed cases without subsequent LB, accounting for guaranteed time bias. ResultsIn 290 women with a LB after diagnosis, overall survival was increased compared to those who did not have a subsequent LB, HR 0.65 (95%CI 0.50–0.85). Women with subsequent LB who had not had a pregnancy before breast cancer showed increased survival (HR 0.56, 0.38–0.82). There was a progressively greater interaction of subsequent LB with survival with younger age, thus for women aged 20–25 years, HR 0.30 (0.12–0.74) vs. those aged 36–39, HR 0.89 (0.42–1.87). In women with LB within five years of diagnosis, survival was also increased (HR 0.66; 0.49–0.89). Survival following LB was similar to unexposed women by ER status (both positive and negative) and in those known to have been exposed to chemotherapy. ConclusionsThis analysis provides further evidence that for the growing number of women who wish to have children after breast cancer, LB does not have a negative impact on overall survival. This finding was confirmed within subgroups, including the youngest women and those not previously pregnant.

Prevalence and causes of cesarean births among women residing at high altitude in Lhasa, Tibet: A retrospective observational study of 7365 women

Objective To use the Robson Ten Group Classification (RTGC) to analyze cesarean section (CS) rates in a Honduran maternity hospital, with focus in groups that consider induction of labor.Methods Cross-sectional study. Women admitted for childbirth (August 2017 to October 2018) were classified according to the RTGC. The CS rate for each group and the contribution to the overall CS rate was calculated, with further analyses of the induction of labor among term primiparous (group 2a), term multiparous (group 4a), and cases with one previous CS (group 5.1).Results A total of 4,356 women were considered, with an overall CS rate of 26.1%. Group 3 was the largest group, with 38.6% (1,682/4,356) of the cases, followed by Group 1, with 30.8% (1,342/4,356), and Group 5, with 10.3% (450/4,356). Considering the contribution to overall CS rates per group, Group 5 contributed with 30.4% (345/1,136) of the CSs and within this group, 286/345 (82.9%) had 1 previous CS, with a CS rate > 70%. Groups 1 and 3, with 26.6% (291/1,136) and 13.5% (153/1,136), respectively, were the second and third larger contributors to the CS rate. Groups 2a and 4a had high induction success, with low CS rates (18.4 and 16.9%, respectively).Conclusion The RTGC is a useful tool to assess CS rates in different healthcare facilities. Groups 5, 1, and 3 were the main contributors to the CS rate, and groups 2 and 4 showed the impact and importance of induction of labor. These findings may support future interventions to reduce unnecessary CS, especially among primiparous and in women with previous CS.

BackgroundGlobally, Caesarean section (CS) rates are mounting and currently exceed the safe upper limit of 15%. Monitoring CS rates using clinical indications and obstetric sub-group analysis could confirm that women in need have been served. In Bangladesh, the reported CS rate was 31% in 2016, and almost twice that rate in urban settings. Delivering in the private healthcare sector was a strong determinant. This study uses Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) to report CS rates in urban Bangladesh. The clinical causes and determining factors for CS births have also been examined.MethodsThis record linkage cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 34 urban for-profit private hospitals having CS facilities during the period June to August 2015. Data were supplied by inpatient case records and operation theatre registers. Descriptive analyses were performed to calculate the relative size of each group; the group-specific CS rate, and group contribution to total CS and overall CS rate. CS indications were grouped into eleven categories using ICD 10 codes. Binary logistic regression was performed to explore the determinants of CS.ResultsOut of 1307 births, delivery by CS occurred in 1077 (82%). Three obstetric groups contributed the most to overall CS rate: previous CS (24%), preterm (23%) and term elective groups (22%). The major clinical indications for CS were previous CS (35%), prolonged and obstructed labor (15%), fetal distress (11%) and amniotic fluid disorder (11%). Multiple gestation, non-cephalic presentation, previous bad obstetric history were positive predictors while oxytocin used for labour induction and increased parity were negative predictors of CS.ConclusionsAs the first ever study in urban private for-profit health facilities in Bangladesh, this study usefully identifies the burden of CS and where to intervene. Engagement of multiple stakeholders including the private sector is crucial in planning effective strategies for safe reduction of CS.