IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstetricians’ Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca L Cavallaro
  • Jenny A Cresswell
  • Carine Ronsmans

Abstract

Background: The debate surrounding the optimal caesarean rate has been ongoing for several decades, with the WHO recommending an “acceptable” rate of 5–15% since 1997, despite a weak evidence base. Global expert opinion from obstetric care providers on the optimal caesarean rate has not been documented. The objective of this study was to examine providers’ opinions of the optimal caesarean rate worldwide, among all deliveries and within specific sub-groups of deliveries. Methods: A global online survey of medical doctors who had performed at least one caesarean in the last five years was conducted between August 2013 and January 2014. Respondents were asked to report their opinion of the optimal caesarean rate—defined as the caesarean rate that would minimise poor maternal and perinatal outcomes—at the population level and within specific sub-groups of deliveries (including women with demographic and clinical risk factors for caesareans). Median reported optimal rates and corresponding inter-quartile ranges (IQRs) were calculated for the sample, and stratified according to national caesarean rate, institutional caesarean rate, facility level, and respondent characteristics. Results: Responses were collected from 1,057 medical doctors from 96 countries. The median reported optimal caesarean rate was 20% (IQR: 15–30%) for all deliveries. Providers in private for-profit facilities and in facilities with high institutional rates reported optimal rates of 30% or above, while those in Europe, in public facilities and in facilities with low institutional rates reported rates of 15% or less. Reported optimal rates were lowest among low-risk deliveries and highest for Absolute Maternal Indications (AMIs), with wide IQRs observed for most categories other than AMIs. Conclusions: Three-quarters of respondents reported an optimal caesarean rate above the WHO 15% upper threshold. There was substantial variation in responses, highlighting a lack of consensus around which women are in need of a caesarean among obstetric care providers worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca L Cavallaro & Jenny A Cresswell & Carine Ronsmans, 2016. "Obstetricians’ Opinions of the Optimal Caesarean Rate: A Global Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152779
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152779
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152779&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152779?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.