A survey of the growing trend of caesarian section in Iran and the world: a review article

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 PhD Student of Health Education and Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care Research Center, School of Public Health, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Social Determinants in Health Promotion Research Center, School of Public Health, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.

3 Gynecologist, Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.

4 Expert of Reproductive Health, Mother and Child Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.

5 Social Development & Health Promotion Research Center, School of Public Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: The rate of cesarean section is increasing in developing and developed countries. Due to the probability of side-effects of cesarean and the importance of knowing the growing trend of this type of delivery, this study was performed with aim to survey the trend of caesarian section in Iran and the world in different studies.
Methods: In this review article, data was collected through databases of PubMed, Science Direct, CINAHL, SID, Iranmedex, Magiran, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus using the keywords of Cesarean Section Rate, caesarian section prevalence, delivery, childhood, relative causes, relative frequency. Time duration for articles' selection was 1990 to 2015. Eventually, 45 articles were included in the study.
Results: Worldwide, the rate of cesarean increased from 6.7% in 1990 to 19.1% in 2014, which represents a 12.4% increase. Cesarean rates increased 14.6 % in developing countries and 12.7% in developed countries. The cesarean rate in the United States increased from 20.7% in 1996 to 32.8 % in 2011. In Iran, the caesarean rate increased from 16% in 1985 to 60% in 2013.
Conclusion: Current rate of cesarean section, except for less developed countries, is consistently increasing and is higher than what is considered medically justifiable. The steep increase and inappropriate rate of caesarean section represents a health problem in Iran and requires the attention of government officials. Since there are numerous factors about the need for caesarean section, various strategies including mother-friendly hospitals, development of standard protocols; preparation classes for mothers, midwives, and gynecologists, and workshops for specialists and midwives should be considered to avoid unnecessary use of this method.

Keywords

References

  1. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367(9525):1819-29.
  2. Hankins GD, Clark SM, Munn MB. Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy, and intrauterine fetal demise. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30(5):276-87.
  3. Subtile P, Ufour V. Consequences maternal de la cesarean parrapport a la voi basses. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2000; 29:10-6.
  4. Alimohammadzadeh K, Mohebi S, Labaf T. Systematic review of research papers in the recent three decades on the “reasons of cesarean section” and population health management strategies in Iran. Womens Strateg Stud 2013; 16(61):7-57. (Persian).
  5. Badiee S, Ravanshad Y, Azarfar A, Dastfan F, Babayi S, Mirzayi N. Survey of cesarean deliveries and their causes in hospitals affiliated to Mashhad university of medical sciences, Iran, 2011. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2013; 16(66):10-7. (Persian).
  6. Rouhe H, Salmela‐Aro K, Halmesmäki E, Saisto T. Fear of childbirth according to parity, gestational age, and obstetric history. BJOG 2009; 116(1):67-73.
  7. Atghaee M, Nouhi E. The effect of imagination of the pain of vaginal delivery and cesarean section on the selection of normal vaginal delivery in pregnant women attending clinics in Kerman university of medical sciences. Iran J Obstet Gyneocol Infertil 2012; 14(7):44-50. (Persian).
  8. Moasheri BN, Sharifzadeh G, Soltanzadeh V, Khosravi Givshad Z, Rakhshany Zabol F. Relationship between fear of pain, fear of delivery and attitude towards cesarean section with preferred mode of delivery among pregnant women. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 18(179):8-16. (Persian).
  9. Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II. Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Maternal choice alone should not determine method of delivery. BMJ 1998; 317(7156):463-5.
  10. Alimohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoodi M, Ramezanzadeh F. The survey of impact of pregnant women's request in selected cesarean. J Iran Instit Health Sci Res 2003; 2:133-9.
  11. Ecker JL. Once a pregnancy, always a cesarean? Rationale and feasibility of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190(2):314-8.
  12. Safari Moradabadi A, Hassani L, Ghanbarnejad A, Madani A, Rajaei IM, Dadipoor S. The effect of education on knowledge and preferred method of delivery in nulliparous women. J Health Care 2014; 16(1):74-83. (Persian).
  13. DeCherney A, Nathan L, Goodwin TM, Laufer N. Current diagnosis and treatment obstetrics and gynecology. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2012.
  14. Miri Farahani L, Abbasi Shavazi MJ. Caesarean section change trends in Iran and some demographic factors associated with them in the past three decades. J Fasa Univ Med Sci 2012; 2(3):127-34. (Persian).
  15. Alimohammadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoodi M, Ramezanzadeh F. Choice of delivery in Tehran and some related factors. J Fam Reprod Health 2007; 1(2):79-84.
  16. Shariat M, Majlesi F, Azari S, Mahmoodi M. Cesarean section in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Payesh 2002; 1(3):5-10. (Persian).
  17. Vaziran A. Cesarean culture. Dard 2000; 2:54-5. (Persian).
  18. Hadizadeh F, Bahri N, Tavakolizadeh J. Postpartum depression after vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section (CS) in primigravida women. J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci 2005; 8(4):21-30. (Persian).
  19. Esmailpour N, Asgharnia M. Early neonatal injuries in normal vaginal and casarean deliveries. J Guilan Univ Med Sci 2005; 14(54):76-84. (Persian).
  20. Dahifar H. Early weight loss of breast-fed neonates born under C-section in their first 48 hours of life. Para Med Sci 2003; 1(4):203-10. (Persian).
  21. Baigi M, Rahimi EA. The effect of cesarean section on bringing about secondary infertility. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Med Sci 2005; 9(2):40-4. (Persian).
  22. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL. Williams obstetrics and gynecology. 23th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
  23. 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):527-35.
  24. 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. World Health Report 2010; 30:1-31.
  25. Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth 2002; 29(1):28-39.
  26. 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.e1-19.
  27. Long Q, Klemetti R, Wang Y, Tao F, Yan H, Hemminki E. High caesarean section rate in rural China: is it related to health insurance (New Co-operative Medical Scheme)? Soc Sci Med 2012; 75(4):733-7.
  28. Kambo I, Bedi N, Dhillon BS, Saxena NC. A critical appraisal of cesarean section rates at teaching hospitals in India. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2002; 79(2):151-8.
  29. Stanton CK, Holtz SA. Levels and trends in cesarean birth in the developing world. Stud Fam Plann 2006; 37(1):41-8.
  30. O'Dwyer V, Hogan JL, Farah N, Kennelly MM, Fitzpatrick C, Turner MJ. Maternal mortality and the rising cesarean rate. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012; 116(2):162-4.
  31. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One 2016; 11(2):e0148343.
  32. Ministry of health and medical education. Tehran: The Fertility Assessment Program Family Health Section; 1976.
  33. Badakhsh MH, Alizadeh KH. The study of cesarean frequencies. J Med Council 2000; 18(3):171-4.
  34. Hajian K. Changing process of caesarean section in private and public hospitals in Babol at 1993-1998. Res Med Sci 2002; 26(3):175-9. (Persian).
  35. Ahmad Nia S, Delavar B, Eini Zinab H, Kazemipour S, Mehryar A, Naghavi M. Caesarean section in the Islamic Republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. East Mediterr Health J 2009; 15(6):1389-98.
  36. Ministry of health and medical education. Tehran:The Fertility Assessment Program Family Health Section; 1998.
  37. Ministry of health and medical education. Tehran: The Fertility Assessment Program Family Health Section; 2005.
  38. Bahadori F, Hakimi S, Heidarzade M. The trend of caesarean delivery in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J 2013; 19(Suppl 3):S67-70.
  39. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
  40. Mi J, Liu F. Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet 2014; 383(9927):1463-4.
  41. Brüggmann D, Löhlein LK, Louwen F, Quarcoo D, Jaque J, Klingelhöfer D, et al. Caesarean section--a density-equalizing mapping study to depict its global research architecture. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12(11):14690-708.
  42. Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous. Lancet 2006; 367(9525):1796-7.
  43. Ministry of Health and Population and ICF International. The 2014 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (2014 EDHS), Cairo, Egypt; 2015.
  44. Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: a nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28(4):277-84.
  45. Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China's 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG 2015; 122(2):160-4.
  46. Torloni MR, Daher S, Betrán AP, Widmer M, Montilla P, Souza JP, et al. Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women’s magazines: 20 year review. BMJ 2011; 342:d276.
  47. Raisanen S, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Heinonen S. Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth by caesarean section-a cross sectional study during 2000-2010 in Finland. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14:120.
  48. Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study. BJOG 2016; 123(4):559-68.
  49. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, Campbell J, Channon AA, Cheung NF, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet 2014; 384(9948):1129-45.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 19, Issue 27
October 2016
Pages 8-17

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics