Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates

Ana Pilar Betran, Jiangfeng Ye, Ann-Beth Moller, João Paulo Souza, Jun Zhang, Ana Pilar Betran, Jiangfeng Ye, Ann-Beth Moller, João Paulo Souza, Jun Zhang

Abstract

Background: The caesarean section (CS) rate continues to increase across high-income, middle-income and low-income countries. We present current global and regional CS rates, trends since 1990 and projections for 2030.

Methods: We obtained nationally representative data on the CS rate from countries worldwide from 1990 to 2018. We used routine health information systems reports and population-based household surveys. Using the latest available data, we calculated current regional and subregional weighted averages. We estimated trends by a piecewise analysis of CS rates at the national, regional and global levels from 1990 to 2018. We projected the CS rate and the number of CS expected in 2030 using autoregressive integrated moving-average models.

Results: Latest available data (2010-2018) from 154 countries covering 94.5% of world live births shows that 21.1% of women gave birth by caesarean worldwide, averages ranging from 5% in sub-Saharan Africa to 42.8% in Latin America and the Caribbean. CS has risen in all regions since 1990. Subregions with the greatest increases were Eastern Asia, Western Asia and Northern Africa (44.9, 34.7 and 31.5 percentage point increase, respectively) while sub-Saharan Africa and Northern America (3.6 and 9.5 percentage point increase, respectively) had the lowest rise. Projections showed that by 2030, 28.5% of women worldwide will give birth by CS (38 million caesareans of which 33.5 million in LMIC annually) ranging from 7.1% in sub-Saharan Africa to 63.4% in Eastern Asia .

Conclusion: The use of CS has steadily increased worldwide and will continue increasing over the current decade where both unmet need and overuse are expected to coexist. In the absence of global effective interventions to revert the trend, Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa will face a complex scenario with morbidity and mortality associated with the unmet need, the unsafe provision of CS and with the concomitant overuse of the surgical procedure which drains resources and adds avoidable morbidity and mortality. If the Sustainable Development Goals are to be achieved, comprehensively addressing the CS issue is a global priority.

Keywords: epidemiology; maternal health; obstetrics; public health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trends (1990–2018) and projections (2030) in global, regional and subregional estimates of CS rates. Solid lines are trend estimates and dotted lines are projections. (A) World; (B) Africa; (C) Asia; (D) Americas; (E) Europe; (F) Oceania. Rates and projections for the Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia were not calculated due to the low coverage of data in this subregion of Oceania.

References

    1. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-Term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2018;15:e1002494. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494
    1. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. . Short-Term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet 2018;392:1349–57. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5
    1. Sobhy S, Arroyo-Manzano D, Murugesu N, et al. . Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2019;393:1973–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32386-9
    1. Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, et al. . Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet 2018;392:1358–68. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5
    1. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, et al. . Who statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016;123:667–70. 10.1111/1471-0528.13526
    1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, et al. . The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
    1. Boatin AA, Schlotheuber A, Betran AP, et al. . Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries. BMJ 2018;360:k55. 10.1136/bmj.k55
    1. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. . Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x
    1. Sustainable development goals United Nations department of economic and social Affairs, New York, 2015. Available:
    1. USAID . The DHS Program - Demographic and Health Surveys, 2020. Available:
    1. UNICEF . Multiple indicator cluster surveys. Available:
    1. CDC . Reproductive health surveys. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health; 2006.
    1. EURO-PERISTAT Project . European perinatal health report; 2008.
    1. Chen H, Yu P, Hailey D, et al. . Methods for assessing the quality of data in public health information systems: a critical review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014;204:13–18.
    1. WHO . Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World bank group and the United Nations population division. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.
    1. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, et al. . Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83:449–55.
    1. Marsh AD, Muzigaba M, Diaz T, et al. . Effective coverage measurement in maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition: progress, future prospects, and implications for quality health systems. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e730–6. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30104-2
    1. United Nationas Statistics Division . Geographic regions, 2021. Available:
    1. United Nations, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs . World population prospects 2019. New York; 2019.
    1. Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, et al. . Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the gather statement. Lancet 2016;388:e19–23. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30388-9
    1. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:3–15. 10.1177/096228029900800102
    1. SAS Institute Inc . SAS/STAT 9 User’s Guide. North Carolina, US: SAS lnstitute Inc; 2003.
    1. SAS Institute Inc . SAS/ETS® 14.3 User’s Guide. North Carolina, US: SAS Institute Inc; 2017.
    1. Opiyo N, Kingdon C, Oladapo OT, et al. . Non-Clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: WHO recommendations. Bull World Health Organ 2020;98:66–8. 10.2471/BLT.19.236729
    1. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, et al. . Non-Clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;9:CD005528. 10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3
    1. Kingdon C, Downe S, Betrán AP. Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health 2018;15:130. 10.1186/s12978-018-0570-z
    1. Kingdon C, Downe S, Betrán AP. Interventions targeted at health professionals to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: a qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 2018;8:e025073. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025073
    1. Kingdon C, Downe S, Betrán AP. Non-Clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One 2018;13:e0203274. 10.1371/journal.pone.0203274
    1. Opiyo N, Young C, Requejo JH, et al. . Reducing unnecessary caesarean sections: scoping review of financial and regulatory interventions. Reprod Health 2020;17:133. 10.1186/s12978-020-00983-y
    1. Li H-T, Luo S, Trasande L, et al. . Geographic variations and temporal trends in cesarean delivery rates in China, 2008-2014. JAMA 2017;317:69–76. 10.1001/jama.2016.18663
    1. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. . Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e14566. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566
    1. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, et al. . A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS One 2014;9:e97769. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769
    1. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. . What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015;12:57. 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6
    1. WHO . WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner