The global epidemiology of Caesarean Sections: major increases and wide disparities

This Lancet Series paper, one of three on the high rate of Caesarean Section (CS), describes the global, regional and selected country levels, trends, determinants and inequalities in CS. Based on data from 169 countries representing 98.4% of the world’s births, we estimate that 21.1% (95% uncertainty range 19.9-22.4%) or 29.7 million births occurred through CS in 2015, representing almost a doubling since 2000 (12.1%; 10.9-13.3%). The differences in CS rates between regions in 2015 were tenfold, with a high of 44.3% (41.3-47.4%) in the Latin America and the Caribbean region and a low of 4.1% (3.6-4.6%) in the West and Central African region. The global and regional increases were driven both by increasing coverage of births by health facilities (66.5% of the global increase) and higher CS rates within health facilities (33.5%), with considerable variation between regions. Based on the most recent data, population-based CS rates exceeded 15% of births in 63% of 169 countries, while 28% countries had CS rates below 10%. National CS rates varied from 0.6% in South Sudan to 58.1% in the Dominican Republic. Within-country disparities in CS rates were also very large, with a six-fold difference in CS rates between births in the richest and poorest quintiles in low- and middle-income countries, markedly high CS rates among low obstetric risk births among especially more educated women in Brazil and China and 1.6 times higher CS rates in private facilities compared to public facilities.

[1]  Kenneth R. Bischof,et al.  Perioperative patient outcomes in the African Surgical Outcomes Study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. , 2018, Lancet.

[2]  R. Scherpbier,et al.  Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[3]  A. Barros,et al.  Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[4]  D. Goodman,et al.  Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, BMJ Open.

[5]  Jun Zhang,et al.  The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014 , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  Stuart R Lipsitz,et al.  Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. , 2015, JAMA.

[7]  R. Mikolajczyk,et al.  WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates , 2015, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[8]  R. Mikolajczyk,et al.  What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies , 2015, Reproductive Health.

[9]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. , 2015, The Lancet. Global health.

[10]  J. Martin,et al.  Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. , 2014, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[11]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. , 2014, Birth.

[12]  C. Stanton,et al.  Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Validating Women’s Self-Report of Emergency Cesarean Sections in Ghana and the Dominican Republic , 2013, PloS one.

[13]  Yan Guo,et al.  Measuring Coverage in MNCH: A Validation Study Linking Population Survey Derived Coverage to Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Care Records in Rural China , 2013, PloS one.

[14]  F. Stanley,et al.  Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[15]  M. Robson,et al.  Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. , 2013, Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology.

[16]  H. Dahlen,et al.  Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study , 2012, BMJ Open.

[17]  F. Barros,et al.  Patterns of deliveries in a Brazilian birth cohort: almost universal cesarean sections for the better-off. , 2011, Revista de saude publica.

[18]  C. Ronsmans,et al.  Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. , 2005, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[19]  Victor R. Preedy,et al.  United Nations Population Division , 2010 .