A Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation of Factors Associated with Caesarean Section Deliveries in Sri Lanka Assessing National Trends and Views of Local Healthcare Professionals in Colombo in 2015
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/EMOJ-9-166Keywords:
Caesarean section (CS), Sri Lanka, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal Health, Public HealthAbstract
Background
A caesarean section (CS) is an operation to deliver a baby through incisions made to the mother’s abdominal wall and uterus, either before or after labor has started. An emergency CS is performed for certain medical indications such as placenta praevia or umbilical cord prolapse, and it most frequently occurs once labor has started. Elective CS are planned CS. They could be performed for non-medical reasons such as maternal request.
Aim
CS rates in Sri Lanka have been rising over the past decades. This study investigates reasons for the rise in CS rates through qualitative and quantitative analyses.
Methods
Qualitative data analysis involved interviews which were conducted in a teaching hospital in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Twenty (20) healthcare professionals in Obstetrics and Gynecology were interviewed. A semi-structured questionnaire, consisting of 15 opened and closed questions, was the basis for the interview. Quantitative analysis was performed on Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from 2006-2007. Variables included mother’s age, education level and residence. Chi-squared (χ2) and regression analysis using statistical package for the social sciences version (SPSS) was performed to determine if these variables were associated with CS.
Results
From qualitative analyses of the interviews, the main themes identified were the healthcare professionals’ views on causes of the rising CS rates, parties involved in the decision-making process, benefits and risks of elective CS and availability of support or alternative options. Quantitative analysis of DHS data showed variables such as residence, province, and education level were significantly associated with CS (p<0.01). Urban residences, living in Colombo and extremes in education levels had the greatest likelihood of a CS. Age, although statistically not significant, is clinically important as literature reviewed showed that CS tend to be more prevalent in extremes of age.
Conclusion
Analysis revealed the importance of factors associated with CS. Targeting areas that showed the greatest prevalence of CS is an effective strategy to address rising rates.
References
Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GML. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Co-chrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; 3(3): CD004660. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3
Britannica. Caesarean Section childbirth. 2014. Web site. http:// www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/103746/cesarean-section. Accessed December 7, 2022.
Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Tem-merman M. Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk preg-nancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliv-eries: An observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012; 12: 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-3
Smith GCS. Variation in caesarean section rates in the US: Outliers, damned outliers, and statistics. PLoS Med. 2014; 11(10): e1001746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001746
Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The Global Numbers And Costs Of Additionally Needed And Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed Per Year: Overuse As A Barrier To Universal Coverage. 2010. Web site. https://cdn.who. int/media/docs/default-source/health-financing/technical-briefs-background-papers/whr-2010-background-paper-30.pdf?sfvrsn=6f 722c7a_3&download=true. Accessed December 7, 2022.
Homer CSE, Besley K, Bell J, et al. Does continuity of care impact decision making in the next birth after a caesarean section (VBAC)? A randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 140. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-140
Räisänen S, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Heinonen S. Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth 8 Perera Y by caesarean section – a cross sectional study during 2000–2010 in finland. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 120. doi: 10.1186/1471- 2393-14-120
The Editor. Guideline on induction of labour. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2013; 35: 136-138. doi: 10.4038/sljog. v35i4.6600
The Editor. Management of Labour. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstet-rics and Gynaecology. 2013; 35: 129-135. doi: 10.4038/sljog.v35i4.6599
Goonewardene M, Kumara DMA, Arachchi DRJ, Vithanage R, Wijeweera R. The rising trend in caesarean section rates: should we and can we reduce it. Sri Lanka Journal Of Obstetrics And Gynae-cology. 2012; 34: 11-18.
Wijesinghe PS, Ekanayake CD. Twice a caesarean, always a cae-sarean: fact or fiction. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2012; 34: 131-134. doi: 10.4038/sljog.v34i4.5926
Suidan RS, Apuzzio JJ, Williams SF. Obesity, comorbidities, and the cesarean delivery rate. Am J Perinatol. 2012; 29: 623-628. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1311987
Dasanayaka DLW, Sidique A, Hooker J. Can we reduce failed instrumental delivery. Galle Medical Journal. 2014; 19: 9-11. doi: 10.4038/gmj.v19i2.7908
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition for survival and development. 2010. Web site. https://www.unicef. org/health/maternal-newborn-and-child-survival. Accessed De-cember 7, 2022.
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of the robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two who multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015; 3(5): 260-270. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
Essex H, Green J, Baston H, Pickett KE. Which women are at an increased risk of a caesarean section or an instrumental vaginal birth in the uk: An exploration within the millennium cohort study. BJOG. 2013; 120: 732-743. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12177.x
Kozhimannil KB, Arcaya MC, Subramanian SV. Maternal clini-cal diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: Analyses of a national us hospital discharge database. PLoS Med. 2014. 11(10):e1001745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001745
Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I. Maternal and infant outcome after caesarean section without recorded medical indica-tion: Findings from a swedish case–control study. BJOG. 2013; 120(4): 479-486; discussion 486. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12129
Wang BS, Zhou LF, Coulter D, et al. Effects of caesarean sec-tion on maternal health in low risk nulliparous women: a prospec-tive matched cohort study In Shanghai, China. BMC Pregnancy Original Research | Volume 9 | Number 1 | Childbirth. 2010; 10: 78. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-78
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Caesarean section: Clinical guideline [CG132]. 2011. Web site. guidance.nice.org.uk/cg132. Accessed December 7, 2022.
Kok N, Ruiter L, Hof M, et al. Risk of maternal and neonatal complications in subsequent pregnancy after planned caesarean section in a first birth, compared with emergency caesarean sec-tion: A nationwide comparative cohort study. BJOG. 2014; 121: 216-223. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12483
Ali A, Kennelly M, et al. Caesarean section rates in public and private patients. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2012.
Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Vangen S. Uterine rup-ture after previous caesarean section. BJOG. 2010; 117: 809-820. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02533.x
Raees M, Yasmeen S, Jabeen S, Utman N, Karim R. Maternal morbidity associated with emergency versus elective caesarean sec-tion. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2013; 27(1): 55-62.
Ecker J. Elective caesarean delivery on maternal request. JAMA. 2013; 309(18): 1930-1936. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.3982
Akintayo AA, Ade-Ojo IP, Olagbuji BN, Akin-Akintayo OO, Ogundare OR, Olofinbiyi BA. Cesarean section on maternal re-quest: The viewpoint of expectant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 289: 781-785. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-3063-x
D’Souza R. Caesarean section on maternal request for non-medical reasons: Putting the UK National Institute Of Health And Clinical Excellence Guidelines In Perspective. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 27: 165-177. doi: 10.1016/j.bpob-gyn.2012.09.006
Emmett CL, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Preferences for mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: What do wom-en want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes. Health Expect. 2010; 14: 397-404. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00635.x
Boutsikou T, Malamitsi-Puchner A. Caesarean section: Impact on mother and child. Acta Paediatrica. 2011; 100: 1518-1522. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02477.x
Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, et al. Impact of cae-sarean section on subsequent fertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(7): 1943-1952. doi: 10.1093/ Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/ Original Research | Volume 9 | Number 1 | Perera Y humrep/det130
Abiodun OO, Joseph U, Tajudeen A. Singleton term breech presentation: planned vaginal delivery vs elective caesarean section at Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital. Sri Lanka Journal Of Obstetrics And Gynaecology. 2012; 34: 45-50. doi: 10.4038/sljog.v34i2.4826
Berlit S, Welzel G, Tuschy B. Emergency caesarean section: Risk factors for adverse neonatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287: 901-905. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2679-6
Kinsella SM, Walton B, Sashidharan R, Draycott T. Catego-ry-1 caesarean section: Asurvey of anaesthetic and peri-opera-tive management in the UK. Anaesthesia. 2010; 65: 362-368. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06265.x
Karlström A, Nystedt A, Johansson M, Hildingsson I. Behind The myth – few women prefer caesarean section in the absence of medical or obstetrical factors. Midwifery. 2011; 27: 620-627. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.05.005
Klein MC. Cesarean section on maternal request: A societal and professional failure and symptom of a much larger problem. Birth. 2012; 39(4): 305-310. doi: 10.1111/birt.12006
Karlström A, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. A comparative study of the experience of childbirth between women who preferred and had a caesarean section and women who preferred and had a vaginal birth. Sex Rep Healthc. 2011; 2: 93-99. doi: 10.1016/j. srhc.2011.03.002
Fenwick J, Staff L, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Bayes S. Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnan-cy. Midwifery. 2010; 26: 394-400. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.011
Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Karlström A, Hildingsson I. Self report-ed fear of childbirth and its association with women’s birth experi-ence and mode of delivery: A longitudinal population-based study. Women Birth. 2012; 25: 114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.06.001
Kottmel A, Hoesli I, Traub R, et al. Maternal request: A reason for rising rates of caesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 93-98. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2273-y
Sørbye IK, Vangen S, Oneko O, et al. Caesarean section among referred and self-referred birthing women: A cohort study from a Tertiary Hospital, Northeastern Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Child-birth. 2011; 11: 55. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-55
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Emergency Medicine (EM) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
