Exploring the impact of indication on variation in rates of intrapartum caesarean section in six Palestinian hospitals: a prospective cohort study

Mohammed W Zimmo, Katariina Laine, Sahar Hassan, Bettina Bottcher, Erik Fosse, Hadil Ali-Masri, Khaled Zimmo, Ragnhild Sørum Falk, Marit Lieng, Ase Vikanes, Mohammed W Zimmo, Katariina Laine, Sahar Hassan, Bettina Bottcher, Erik Fosse, Hadil Ali-Masri, Khaled Zimmo, Ragnhild Sørum Falk, Marit Lieng, Ase Vikanes

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section rates are rising globally. No specific caesarian section rate at either country-level or hospital-level was recommended. In Palestinian government hospitals, nearly one-fourth of all births were caesarean sections, ranging from 14.5 to 35.6%. Our aim was to assess whether variation in odds for intrapartum caesarean section in six Palestinian government hospitals can be explained by differences in indications.

Methods: Data on maternal and fetal health were collected prospectively for all women scheduled for vaginal delivery during the period from 1st March 2015 to 30th November 2016 in six government hospitals in Palestine. Comparisons of proportions in sociodemographic, antenatal obstetric characteristics and indications by the hospital were tested by χ2 test and differences in means by one-way ANOVA analysis. The odds for intrapartum caesarean section were estimated by logistic regression. The amount of explained variance was estimated by Nagelkerke R square.

Results: Out of 51,041 women, 4724 (9.3%) underwent intrapartum caesarean section. The prevalence of intrapartum caesarean section varied across hospitals; from 7.6 to 22.1% in nulliparous, and from 5.8 to 14.1% among parous women. The most common indications were fetal distress and failure to progress in nulliparous, and previous caesarean section with an additional obstetric indication among parous women. Adjusted ORs for intrapartum caesarean section among nulliparous women ranged from 0.42 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.57) to 2.41 (95% CI 1.70 to 3.40) compared to the reference hospital, and from 0.50 (95% CI 0.40-0.63) to 2.07 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.67) among parous women. Indications explained 58 and 66% of the variation in intrapartum caesarean section among nulliparous and parous women, respectively.

Conclusion: The differences in odds for intrapartum caesarean section among hospitals could not be fully explained by differences in indications. Further investigations on provider related factors as well as maternal and fetal outcomes in different hospitals are necessary.

Keywords: Caesarean section; Gaza; Indications; Intrapartum; Odds; Palestine; West Bank.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the selected study population, multicenter study from Palestine

References

    1. Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews J, Oyarzun E. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 2016;388(10039):62–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00204-X.
    1. Kwee A, Elferink-Stinkens P, Reuwer P, Bruinse H. Trends in obstetric interventions in the Dutch obstetrical care system in the period 1993–2002. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;132(1):70–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.06.018.
    1. Paxton A, Bailey P, Lobis S, Fry D. Global patterns in availability of emergency obstetric care. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;93(3):300–307. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.01.030.
    1. Betran A, Torloni M, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu A. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667–670. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526.
    1. Hassan S, Vikanes A, Laine K, Zimmo K, Zimmo M, Bjertness E, Fosse E. Building a research registry for studying birth complications and outcomes in six Palestinian governmental hospitals. BMC pregnancy childbirth. 2017;17(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1296-6.
    1. Lurie S. Caesarean section in Ancient Greek mythology. Acta Med Hist Adriat. 2015;13(1):209–216.
    1. Fioretti B, Reiter M, Betrán A, Torloni M. Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the Internet. BJOG. 2015;122(5):731–739. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13081.
    1. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff. 2013;32(3):527–535. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030.
    1. Wick L, Mikki N, Giacaman R, Abdul-Rahim H. Childbirth in palestine. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89(2):174–178. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.01.029.
    1. Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2010;341:c5065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5065.
    1. Zimmo M, Laine K, Hassan S, Fosse E, Lieng M, Ali-Masri H, Zimmo K, Anti M, Bottcher B, Falk RS. Differences in rates and odds for emergency caesarean section in six Palestinian hospitals: a population-based birth cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019509. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019509.
    1. Dekker L, Houtzager T, Kilume O, Horogo J, van Roosmalen J, Nyamtema AS. Caesarean section audit to improve quality of care in a rural referral hospital in Tanzania. BMC pregnancy childbirth. 2018;18(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1814-1.
    1. Lucas D, Yentis S, Kinsella S, Holdcroft A, May A, Wee M, Robinson P. Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. J R Soc Med. 2000;93(7):346–350. doi: 10.1177/014107680009300703.
    1. Burns LR, Geller SE, Wholey DR. The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision. Med Care. 1995;33(4):365–382. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199504000-00004.
    1. Fuglenes D, Øian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(1):48:e41–e48.
    1. Gholitabar M, Ullman R, James D, Griffiths M, Group GD Caesarean section: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343:d7108. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7108.
    1. Haerskjold A, Hegaard H, Kjaergaard H. emergency caesarean section in low risk nulliparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(6):543–547. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2012.689027.
    1. Excellence NIfC: Caesarean Section-NICE clinical guideline 132. London; 2012.
    1. Rossen J, Østborg TB, Lindtjørn E, Schulz J, Eggebø TM. Judicious use of oxytocin augmentation for the management of prolonged labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(3):355–361. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12821.
    1. Ehtisham S, Hashmi HA: Determinants of caesarean section in a tertiary hospital. J Pak Med Assoc (JPMA) 2014, 2:3.65.
    1. Aminu M, Utz B, Halim A, Van Den Broek N. Reasons for performing a caesarean section in public hospitals in rural Bangladesh. BMC pregnancy childbirth. 2014;14(1):130. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-130.
    1. Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II, Paterson-Brown S. Should Doctors Perform an Elective Caesarean Section on Request?: Yes, as Long as the Woman Is Fully Informed; Maternal Choice Alone Should Not Determine Method of Delivery. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):462–465. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.462.
    1. Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO, Kesmodel US, Munk L, Andersson CB, Jølving LR, Nielsen J, Nørgård BM. Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e019120. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019120.
    1. Hanley GE, Janssen PA, Greyson D. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(6):1201–1208. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181dd918c.
    1. Caceres IA, Arcaya M, Declercq E, Belanoff CM, Janakiraman V, Cohen B, Ecker J, Smith LA, Subramanian S. Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004–2006: the case against case-mix artifact. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057817.
    1. Joseph K, 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(4):791–800.
    1. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GD, Meyers JA, Houser FM. Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:e521–e526. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.01.024.
    1. Palestinian Ministry of Health and UNFPA . Obstetric Guidelines and labour ward protocols, 4th edition, vol. 4. 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren