Trend of caesarean deliveries in Egypt and its associated factors: evidence from national surveys, 2005-2014

Rami H Al Rifai, Rami H Al Rifai

Abstract

Background: The continued rise in caesarean section (c-section) deliveries raises a major public health concern worldwide. This study assessed the trend of c-section deliveries and examined factors associated with a rise in c-section deliveries among the Egyptian mothers, from 2005 to 2014, by place of delivery.

Methods: This study utilized the 2005, 2008, and 2014 Egypt Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS). The EDHS reported on the mode of delivery for the last birth occurred within five years preceding each survey including place of delivery and sociodemographic information for a total sample of over 29,000 mothers in the three surveys. To document trend of c-section, the EDHS-2005 was set as a reference in two binary logistic regression models; among all mothers together and for mothers stratified by place of delivery (public or private). P-value for the trend was assessed by entering the year of the survey as a continuous variable. The study followed STROBE statement in reporting observational studies.

Results: Institutional-based c-sections increased by 40.7 points from EDHS-2005 to EDHS-2014 (aOR, 3.46, 95%CI: 3.15-3.80, P trend < 0.001). Compared to mothers with low socioeconomic status (SES), mothers with high SES had higher odds (aOR, 1.78, 95%CI: 1.25-2.54, P = 0.001) for c-section, but only in EDHS-2005. The adjusted trend of c-sections was found to be 4.19-time (95%CI: 3.73-4.70, P < 0.001) higher in private sector while that in public sector it was 2.67-time (95%CI: 2.27-3.13, P = 0.001) higher, in EDHS-2014 relative to EDHS-2005. This increase in the private sector is explained by significant increases among mothers who are potentially at low risk for c-sections; mothers aged 19-24 years vs. ≥35 years (aOR: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.21-0.45, in EDHS-2005 vs. 0.43, 95%CI: 0.33-0.56, in EDHS-2014, P < 0.001); primigravida mothers vs. mothers with ≥4 children (aOR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.12-2.34, in EDHS-2005 vs. 3.76, 95%CI: 2.94-4.80 in EDHS-2014); and among normal compared to high risk birth weight babies (aOR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.62-0.99 in EDHS-2005 P < 0.05 vs. 0.83, 95%CI: 0.65-1.04 in EDHS-2014, P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Results showed a steady rise in c-sections in Egypt that has reached an alarming level in recent years. This increase appears to be associated with a shift towards delivery in private health care facilities. More vigilance of c-section deliveries, particularly in the private sector, is warranted.

Keywords: Caesarean section delivery; Egypt; Maternal delivery; Maternal health.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is based solely on a retrospective analysis of secondary existing anonymous survey data published by the DHS program. EDHS is approved by the government of Egypt. Data collection team obtained voluntary consent from sampled women to participate in the survey, study protocol and consent procedure are described elsewhere [16]. For this analysis, there was no need for permission from the institutional review board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sample selection, unweighted numbers
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trend in c-section deliveries in Egypt, 2000–2014

References

    1. World Health Organization. Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. () Accessed 12 Apr 2016.
    1. World Health Organization. Cesarean section without medical indication increases risk of short-term adverse outcomes for mothers. Geneva: WHO. Available from: . Accessed 21 Mar 2015.
    1. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO global survey on maternal and Perinatal health. BMC Med. 2010;8:71. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-71. PubMed PMID: 21067593; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2993644.
    1. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335(7628):1025. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.55. PubMed PMID: 17977819; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2078636.
    1. Kennare R, Tucker G, Heard A, Chan A. Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(2 Pt 1):270-276. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000250469.23047.73. PubMed PMID: 17267823.
    1. Daltveit AK, Tollanes MC, Pihlstrom H, Irgens LM. Cesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111(6):1327-1334. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181744110. PubMed PMID: 18515516.
    1. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Farrell SA, Baskett TF. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193(1):192-197. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.635. PubMed PMID: 16021078.
    1. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):331 e1-331 19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.026. PubMed PMID: 22464076.
    1. Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Cito L, Chironna E, Scattarella D, Selvaggi LE. Social determinants of the increasing caesarean section rate in Italy. Minerva Ginecol 2008;60(2):115-120. PubMed PMID: 18487961.
    1. McCallum C. Explaining caesarean section in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil Sociol Health Illn 2005;27(2):215-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00440.x. PubMed PMID: 15787776.
    1. Nuttall C. Caesarean section controversy. The caesarean culture of Brazil. BMJ. 2000;320(7241):1074. PubMed PMID: 10836808.
    1. Ba'aqeel HS. Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med. 2009;29(3):179-183. PubMed PMID: 19448379; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2813649.
    1. Giani U, Bruzzese D, Pugliese A, Saporito M, Triassi M. [Risk factors analysis for elective caesarean section in Campania region (Italy)]. Epidemiol Prev 2011;35(2):101-110. PubMed PMID: 21628753.
    1. Al Rifai R. Rising cesarean deliveries among apparently low-risk mothers at university teaching hospitals in Jordan: analysis of population survey data, 2002-2012. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(2):195-209. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00027. PubMed PMID: 25276577; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4168617.
    1. Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Egypt] E-ZA, and ORC Macro. Egypt service provision assessment survey 2002. Calverton, Maryland: Ministry of Health and Population, El-Zanaty Associates, and ORC Macro. Available from: . Accessed 20 Apr 2016.
    1. Ministry of Health and Population [Egypt] E-ZaAE, and ICF International. Egypt demographic and health survey 2014. Cairo, Egypt and Rockville, Maryland, USA: Ministry of Health and Population and ICF International. 2015.
    1. UNFPA. UNFPA-Egypt. Available from: / Accessed 2 Apr 2016.
    1. Khawaja M, Jurdi R, Kabakian-Khasholian T. Rising trends in cesarean section rates in Egypt. Birth. 2004;31(1):12-16. PubMed PMID: 15015988; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1457115.
    1. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, Pujades M, Ronsmans C. Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(6):449-455. doi: /S0042–96862005000600013. PubMed PMID: 15976896; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2626266.
    1. Measure. Demographic and Health Surveys. Measures DHS. 2010.
    1. STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies. Availbale from: . Accessed 20 Nov 2015.
    1. Rutstein S, Rojas G. Guide to DHS statistics. Demographic and Health Surveys ORC Macro, Calverton, Maryland. 2006. Available from: . Accessed 22 Mar 2016
    1. Khawaja M, Al-Nsour M. Trends in the prevalence and determinants of caesarean section delivery in Jordan: evidence from three demographic and health surveys, 1990--2002. World Health Popul 2007;9(4):17-28. PubMed PMID: 18567949.
    1. Rahman M, Nakamura K, Kizuki M. Socioeconomic differences in the prevalence, awareness, and control of diabetes in Bangladesh. J Diabetes Complicat 2015;29(6):788-793. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.04.011. PubMed PMID: 25981122.
    1. Organization WH. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO (). Accessed 30 March, 2015.
    1. Hoellen F, Hornemann A, Haertel C, Reh A, Rody A, Schneider S, et al. Does maternal underweight prior to conception influence pregnancy risks and outcome? In Vivo 2014;28(6):1165-1170. PubMed PMID: 25398817.
    1. Leung TY, Leung TN, Sahota DS, Chan OK, Chan LW, Fung TY, et al. Trends in maternal obesity and associated risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in a population of Chinese women. BJOG 2008;115(12):1529-1537. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01931.x. PubMed PMID: 19035989.
    1. Liu Y, Dai W, Dai X, Li Z. Prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with the outcome of pregnancy: a 13-year study of 292,568 cases in China. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286(4):905-911. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2403-6. PubMed PMID: 22695822.
    1. Zhang Y, Wang ZL, Liu B, Cai J. Pregnancy outcome of overweight and obese Chinese women with gestational diabetes. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;34(8):662-665. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.920787. PubMed PMID: 24911378.
    1. Ding XX, Xu SJ, Hao JH, Huang K, Su PY, Tao FB. Maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and adverse pregnancy outcomes among Chinese women: results from the C-ABCS. J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;36(3):328-332. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1050652. PubMed PMID: 26492517.
    1. Gomes UA, Silva AA, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Risk factors for the increasing caesarean section rate in Southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978-1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28(4):687-694. PubMed PMID: 10480697.
    1. Corporation. I. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corporation; 2013. 2013.
    1. Souza JP, Betran AP, Dumont A, de Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens CM, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123(3):427-436. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13509. PubMed PMID: 26259689.
    1. Subedi S. Rising rate of cesarean section–a year review. Journal of Nobel Medical College. 2012;1(2):72–76.
    1. Wahabi H, Fayed A, Esmaeil S, Alzeidan R, Elawad M, Tabassum R, et al. Riyadh mother and baby multicenter cohort study: the cohort profile. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150297. PubMed PMID: 26937965; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4777404.
    1. World Health Organization. Country statistics and global health estimates by WHO and UN partners. Egypt: WHO statistical profile. Last updated: January 2015. Available from: . Accessed 10 May 2016.
    1. UNDP . UNDP human development report 2015, Egypt central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics – CAPMAS. 2015.
    1. Luz Gibbons JMB, Jeremy A Lauer, Ana P Betrán, Mario Merialdi and Fernando Althabe. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 30. Available from: . Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
    1. El-Zanaty FaAW. Egypt demographic and health survey 2008. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Health, El-Zanaty and Associates, and Macro International. 2009.
    1. World Health Organization. World Hepatitis Day – July 28, 2012. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 61: 1/3p. 2012.
    1. Bell JCD, Graham WJ, Penney GC, Ryan M, Hall MH. Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. Br Med J. 2001;322:894–895. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7291.894.
    1. Mishra US, Ramanathan M. Delivery-related complications and determinants of caesarean section rates in India. Health Policy Plan 2002;17(1):90-98. PubMed PMID: 11861590.
    1. Padmadas SS, Kumar S, Nair SB, Kumari A. Caesarean section delivery in Kerala, India: evidence from a National Family Health Survey. Soc Sci Med 2000;51(4):511-521. PubMed PMID: 10868667.
    1. Peipert JF, Bracken MB. Maternal age: an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81(2):200-205. PubMed PMID: 8423950.
    1. Webster LA, Daling JR, McFarlane C, Ashley D, Warren CW. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in Jamaica. J Biosoc Sci 1992;24(4):515-525. PubMed PMID: 1429779.
    1. Nour NM. Health consequences of child marriage in Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(11):1644-1649. doi: 10.3201/eid1211.060510. PubMed PMID: 17283612; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3372345.
    1. Leddy MA, Power ML, Schulkin J. The impact of maternal obesity on maternal and fetal health. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(4):170-178. PubMed PMID: 19173021; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2621047.
    1. Platt MJ, Marshall A, Pharoah PO. The effects of assisted reproduction on the trends and zygosity of multiple births in England and Wales 1974-99. Twin Res 2001;4(6):417-421. PubMed PMID: 11780931.
    1. Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth 2002;29(1):28-39. PubMed PMID: 11843787.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa