Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Sep 28;9(9):CD005528.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

Innie Chen  1 , Newton Opiyo, Emma Tavender, Sameh Mortazhejri, Tamara Rader, Jennifer Petkovic, Sharlini Yogasingam, Monica Taljaard, Sugandha Agarwal, Malinee Laopaiboon, Jason Wasiak, Suthit Khunpradit, Pisake Lumbiganon, Russell L Gruen, Ana Pilar Betran
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

Innie Chen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.

Data collection and analysis: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).

Main results: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

Authors' conclusions: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Innie Chen: no known conflicts of interest Newton Opiyo is an editor with Cochrane EPOC and member of the WHO CS Guideline Technical Working Group Emma Tavender: no known conflicts of interest Sameh Mortazhejri: no known conflicts of interest Tamara Rader: no known conflicts of interest Jennifer Petkovic: no known conflicts of interest Sharlini Yogasingam: no known conflicts of interest Monica Taljaard: no known conflicts of interest Sugandha Agarwal: no known conflicts of interest Malinee Laopaiboon: no known conflicts of interest Jason Wasiak: no known conflicts of interest Suthit Khunpradit: no known conflicts of interest Pisake Lumbiganon: Member of the WHO CS Guideline Development Group (Co‐chair) Russell Gruen: no known conflicts of interest Ana Pilar Betran: Member of the WHO Steering Group who managed the CS guideline development process

Figures

1
1
aSearches run in March 2018 (Appendix 1). bSearches run in August 2014 (Appendix 2) and February 2017 (Appendix 3).
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Althabe 2004 {published data only}
    1. Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised control trial. Lancet 2004;363(9425):1934‐40. - PubMed
Ayres‐De‐Campos 2015 {published data only}
    1. Ayres‐De‐Campos D, Cruz J, Medeiros‐Borges C, Costa‐Santos C, Vicente L. Lowered national cesarean section rates after a concerted action. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2015;94(4):391‐8. - PubMed
Bastani 2006 {published data only}
    1. Bastani F, Hidarnia A, Kazemnejad A, Vafaei M, Kashanian M. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of applied relaxation training on reducing anxiety and perceived stress in pregnant women. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 2005;50(4):e36‐e40. - PubMed
    1. Bastani F, Hidarnia A, Montgomery KS, Aguilar‐Vafaei ME, Kazemnejad A. Does relaxation education in anxious primigravid Iranian women influence adverse pregnancy outcomes? A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 2006;20(2):138‐46. - PubMed
Bergstrom 2009 {published data only}
    1. Bergstrom M, Kieler H, Waldenstrom U. Psychoprophylaxis during labor: associations with labor‐related outcomes and experience of childbirth. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2010;89(6):794‐800. - PubMed
    1. Bergström M, Kieler H, Waldenström U. Effects of natural childbirth preparation versus standard antenatal education on epidural rates, experience of child birth and parental stress in mothers and fathers. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;116(9):1167‐76. - PMC - PubMed
Chaillet 2015 {published data only}
    1. Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, Pasquier JC, Audibert F, Monnier P, et al. QUARISMA Trial Research Group. A cluster‐randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;372(18):1710‐21. - PubMed
Eden 2014 {published data only}
    1. Eden KB, Perrin NA, Vesco KK, Guise JM. A randomized comparative trial of two decision tools for pregnant women with prior cesareans. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 2014;43(5):568‐79. - PubMed
Feinberg 2015 {published data only}
    1. Feinberg ME, Roettger ME, Jones DE, Paul IM, Kan ML. Effects of a psychosocial couple‐based prevention program on adverse birth outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2015;19(1):102‐11. - PMC - PubMed
Fenwick 2015 {published data only}
    1. Fenwick J, Toohill J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Buist A, Turkstra E, et al. Effects of a midwife psycho‐education intervention to reduce childbirth fear on women's birth outcomes and postpartum psychological wellbeing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:284. - PMC - PubMed
Fraser 1997 {published data only}
    1. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin J‐M. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997;176(2):419‐25. - PubMed
Hemminki 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hemminki E, Heikkila K, Sevon T, Koponen P. Special features of health services and register based trials ‐ experiences from a randomised trial of childbirth classes. BMC Health Services Research 2008;8:126‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Keeler 1996 {published data only}
    1. Keeler EB, Fok T. Equalizing physician fees had little effect on cesarean rates. Medical Care Research and Review 1996;53(4):465‐71. - PubMed
Liang 2004 {published data only}
    1. Liang WH, Yuan CC, Hung JH, Yang ML, Yang MJ, Chen YJ. Effect of peer review and trial of labor on lowering cesarean section rates. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 2004;67(6):281‐6. - PubMed
Lo 2008 {published data only}
    1. Lo JC. Financial incentives do not always work ‐ an example of cesarean sections in Taiwan. Health Policy 2008;88(1):121‐9. - PubMed
Lomas 1991 {published data only}
    1. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs adult and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265(17):2202‐7. - PubMed
Masoumi 2016 {published data only}
    1. Masoumi SZ, Kazemi F, Oshvandi K, Jalali M, Esmaeili‐Vardanjani A, Rafiei H. Effect of training preparation for childbirth on fear of normal vaginal delivery and choosing the type of delivery among pregnant women in Hamadan, Iran: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Family and Reproductive Health 2016;10(3):115‐21. - PMC - PubMed
Mohammadi 2012 {published data only}
    1. Mohammadi S, Kallestal C, Essen B. A practical strategy for reducing cesarean section rates in a general hospital in Tehran, Iran. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2012;57(1‐2):43‐8. - PubMed
Montgomery 2007 {published data only}
    1. Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, DiAMOND Study Group. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;334(7607):1305‐12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Montgomery AA, DiAMOND Study Group. The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2004;4(1):25‐32. - PMC - PubMed
Navaee 2015 {published data only}
    1. Navaee M, Abedian Z. Effect of role play education on primiparous women's fear of natural delivery and their decision on the mode of delivery. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 2015;20(1):40‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Poma 1998 {published data only}
    1. Poma PA. Effect of departmental policies on cesarean delivery rates: a community hospital experience. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;91(6):1013‐8. - PubMed
Rosenstein 2015 {published data only}
    1. Rosenstein MG, Nijagal M, Nakagawa S, Gregorich SE, Kuppermann M. The association of expanded access to a collaborative midwifery and laborist model with cesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;126(4):716‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Rouhe 2013 {published data only}
    1. Rouhe H, Salmela‐Aro K, Toivanen R, Tokola M, Halmesmäki E, Saisto T. Obstetric outcome after intervention for severe fear of childbirth in nulliparous women ‐ randomised trial. BJOG 2013;120(1):75‐84. - PubMed
Runmei 2012 {published data only}
    1. Runmei M, Lao Terence T, Yonghu S, Hong X, Yuqin T, Bailuan L, et al. Practice audits to reduce caesareans in a tertiary referral hospital in south‐western China. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2012;90(7):488‐94. - PMC - PubMed
Saisto 2001 {published data only}
    1. Saisto T, Salmela‐Aro K, Nurmi JE, Könönen T, Halmesmäki E. A randomized controlled trial of intervention in fear of childbirth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;98(5):820‐6. - PubMed
Scarella 2011 {published data only}
    1. Scarella A, Chamy V, Sepulveda M, Belizan JM. Medical audit using the Ten Group Classification System and its impact on the cesarean section rate. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2011;154(2):136‐40. - PubMed
Sharifirad 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sharifirad G, Rezaeian M, Soltani R, Javaheri S, Mazaheri MA. A survey on the effects of husbands' education of pregnant women on knowledge, attitude, and reducing elective cesarean section. Journal of Education and Health Promotion 2013;2:50. - PMC - PubMed
Shorten 2005 {published data only}
    1. Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomised controlled trial of a decision‐aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth 2005;32(4):252‐61. - PubMed
Srinivas 2016 {published data only}
    1. Srinivas SK, Small DS, Macheras M, Hsu JY, Caldwell D, Lorch S. Evaluating the impact of the laborist model of obstetric care on maternal and neonatal outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2016;215(6):770.e1‐.e9. - PubMed
Valiani 2014 {published data only}
    1. Valiani M, Haghighatdana Z, Ehsanpour S. Comparison of childbirth training workshop effects on knowledge, attitude, and delivery method between mothers and couples groups referring to Isfahan health centers in Iran. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 2014;19(6):653‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Wang 2014 {published data only}
    1. Wang X, Li GY, Deng, ML. Pelvic floor muscle training as a persistent nursing intervention: Effect on delivery outcome and pelvic floor myodynamia. International Journal of Nursing Sciences 2014;1:48‐52.

References to studies excluded from this review

Afshar 2015 {published data only}
    1. Afshar Y, Mei J, Wong M, Gregory K, Kilpatrick S, Esakoff T. The role of the birth plan in obstetrical and neonatal outcomes and birth experience satisfaction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;212(1):S282.
Arrieta 2011 {published data only}
    1. Arrieta A. Health reform and cesarean sections in the private sector: The experience of Peru. Health Policy 2011;99(2):124‐30. - PubMed
Bailey 2010 {published data only}
    1. Bailey PE, Binh HT, Bang HT. Promoting accountability in obstetric care: use of criteria‐based audit in Viet Nam. Global Public Health 2010;5(1):62‐74. - PubMed
Barber 2010 {published data only}
    1. Barber SL. Mexico's conditional cash transfer programme increases cesarean section rates among the rural poor. European Journal of Public Health 2010;20(4):383‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Bernitz 2011 {published data only}
    1. Bernitz S, Rolland R, Blix E, Jacobsen M, Sjøborg K, Øian P. Is the operative delivery rate in low‐risk women dependent on the level of birth care? A randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2011;118(11):1357‐64. - PMC - PubMed
Bonfrer 2016 {published data only}
    1. Bonfrer I, Breebaart L, Poel E. The effects of Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme on maternal and infant health care utilization. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0165623. - PMC - PubMed
Calvo 2009 {published data only}
    1. Calvo A, Campillo C, Juan M, Roig C, Hermoso JC, Cabeza PD. Effectiveness of a multifaceted strategy to improve the appropriateness of cesarean sections. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica 2009;88(7):842‐5. - PubMed
Chambliss 1992 {published data only}
    1. Chambliss LR, Daly C, Medearis AL, Ames M, Kayne M, Paul R. The role of selection bias in comparing caesarean birth rates between physician and midwifery management. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;80:161‐5. - PubMed
Chen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Chen CS, Liu TC, Chen B, Lin CL. The failure of financial incentive? The seemingly inexorable rise of cesarean section. Social Science & Medicine 2014;101:47‐51. - PubMed
Chittithavorn 2006 {published data only}
    1. Chittithavorn S, Pinjaroen S, Suwanrath C, Soonthornpun K. Clinical practice guideline for cesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2006;89(6):735‐40. - PubMed
Costa 2009 {published data only}
    1. Costa ML, Cecatti JG, Milanez HM, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu M. Audit and feedback: effects on professional obstetrical practice and healthcare outcomes in a university hospital. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica 2009;88(7):793‐800. - PubMed
David 2001 {published data only}
    1. David S, Mamelle N, Riviere O. Estimation of an expected caesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the AUDIPOG Sentinelle Network (France). British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001;108(9):919‐26. - PubMed
Dunn 2013 {published data only}
    1. Dunn S, Sprague AE, Fell DB, Dy S, Harrold S, Lamontagne B, et al. The use of a quality indicator to reduce elective repeat caesarean section for low‐risk women before 39 Weeks’ gestation: The Eastern Ontario experience. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2013;35(4):306‐16. - PubMed
Fournier 2014 {published data only}
    1. Fournier P, Dumont A, Tourigny C, Philibert A, Coulibaly A, Traoré M. The free caesareans policy in low‐income settings: an interrupted time series analysis in Mali (2003‐2012). PLoS One 2014;9(8):e105130. - PMC - PubMed
Ganji 2006 {published data only}
    1. Ganji F, Yusefi H, Baradaran A. Effect of a participatory intervention to reduce the number of unnecessary caesarean sections performed in Shahrekord of Iran. Journal of Medical Sciences 2006;6(4):690‐2.
Gilbert 2012 {published data only}
    1. Gilbert W, Bliss MC, Johnson A, Gregg L, Swanson C. Effect of education and provider transparency upon individual cesarean, episiotomy, antenatal steroid, and breastfeeding rates. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;26(1):A1‐A38, S1‐S386.
Gregory 1999 {published data only}
    1. Gregory KD, Hackmeyer P, Gold L, Johnson AI, Platt LD. Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the cesarean section rate. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 1999;25(12):619‐29. - PubMed
Gruber 1999 {published data only}
    1. Gruber J, Kim J, Mayzlin D. Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery. Journal of Health Economics 1999;18(4):473‐90. - PubMed
Hemminki 2013 {published data only}
    1. Hemminki E, Long Q, Zhang WH, Wu Z, Raven J, Tao F, et al. Impact of financial and educational interventions on maternity care: results of cluster randomized trials in rural China, CHIMACA. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2013;17:208‐21. - PubMed
Ho 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ho JJ, Japaraj RP, Che Anuar CY, Rostenberghe HA, Paeds SA, Chang ASM, et al. Influence of a targeted educational intervention on evidence‐based practice in two Malaysian maternity units: The sea ORCHID project in Malaysia. Medical Journal of Malaysia 2011;66(4):288‐95. - PubMed
Howell 2004 {published data only}
    1. Howell EM, Dubay L, Kenney G, Sommers AS. The impact of Medicaid managed care on pregnant women in Ohio: a cohort analysis. Health Services Research 2004;39(4):825‐46. - PMC - PubMed
Hutcheon 2015 {published data only}
    1. Hutcheon JA, Strumpf EC, Harper S, Giesbrecht E. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after implementation of a hospital policy to limit low‐risk planned caesarean deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation: an interrupted time‐series analysis. BJOG 2015;122(9):1200‐6. - PubMed
Iglesias 1991 {published data only}
    1. Iglesias S, Burn R, Saunders D. Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1991;146(10):1459‐64. - PMC - PubMed
Jenabi 2012 {published data only}
    1. Jenabi E, Hajiloo MM, Torkamani M. The effect of reflexology on relieving the labor pain. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility 2012;14(8):34‐8.
Jiang 2015 {published data only}
    1. Jiang Y, Liu XW. Effect of new‐pattern obstetrical nursing in reducing cesarean delivery rate. Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents 2015;29(4):847‐51. - PubMed
Kasawara 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kasawara KT, Burgos CS, Do Nascimento SL, Ferreira NO, Surita FG, Pinto E Silva JL. Maternal and perinatal outcomes of exercise in pregnant women with chronic hypertension and/or previous preeclampsia: A randomized controlled trial. ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;857047:1‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Kazandjian 1998 {published data only}
    1. Kazandjian VA, Lied TR. Cesarean section rates: effects of participation in a performance measurement project. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 1998;24(4):187‐96. - PubMed
Kim 2005 {published data only}
    1. Kim C‐Y, Ko S‐K, Kim K‐Y. Are league tables controlling epidemic of caesarean sections in South Korea?. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005;112(5):607‐11. - PubMed
Kiwankura 1993 {published data only}
    1. Kiwankura AI, Moore WM. Influence of audit and feedback on the use of caesarean section in a geographically defined population. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1993;50(1):59‐64. - PubMed
Kongnyuy 2008 {published data only}
    1. Kongnyuy EJ, Leigh B, Broek N. Effect of audit and feedback on the availability, utilisation and quality of emergency obstetric care in three districts in Malawi. Women and Birth 2008;21(4):149‐55. - PubMed
Koroukian 2001 {published data only}
    1. Koroukian SM, Bush D, Rimm AA. Comparison of cesarean section rates in fee‐for‐service versus managed care patients in the Ohio Medicaid population, 1992‐1997. American Journal of Managed Care 2001;7(2):134‐42. - PubMed
Kunthonkitidej 2001 {published data only}
    1. Kunthonkitidej K, Ngernset O. Self‐evaluation of obstetricians by delivery data to reduce cesarean section rate in Chai Nat Hospital. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2001;84(11):1587‐93. - PubMed
Lagrew 1996 {published data only}
    1. Lagrew DC Jr, Morgan MA. Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;174(1):184–91. - PubMed
Law 1999 {published data only}
    1. Law YY, Lam KY. A randomized controlled trial comparing midwife‐managed care and obstetrician‐managed care for women assessed to be at low risk in the initial intrapartum period. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 1999;25(2):107‐12. - PubMed
Lee 2007 {published data only}
    1. Lee K, Lee S. Effects of the DRG‐based prospective payment system operated by the voluntarily participating providers on the cesarean section rates in Korea. Health Policy 2007;81(2‐3):300‐8. - PubMed
Leone 2016 {published data only}
    1. Leone T, Cetorelli V, Neal S, Matthews Z. Financial accessibility and user fee reforms for maternal healthcare in five sub‐Saharan countries: a quasi‐experimental analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(1):e009692. - PMC - PubMed
Main 1999 {published data only}
    1. Main EK. Reducing cesarean birth rates with data‐driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics 1999;103(1 Suppl E):374‐83. - PubMed
Misra 2008 {published data only}
    1. Misra A. Impact of the HealthChoice Program on cesarean section and vaginal birth after C‐section deliveries: a retrospective analysis. Maternal Child Health Journal 2008;12(2):266‐74. - PubMed
Morhason‐Bello 2009 {published data only}
    1. Morhason‐Bello IO, Adedokun BO, Ojengbede OA, Olayemi O, Oladokun A, Fabamwo AO. Assessment of the effect of psychosocial support during childbirth in Ibadan, south‐west Nigeria: a randomised controlled trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;49(2):145‐50. - PubMed
Myers 1993 {published data only}
    1. Myers SA, Gleicher N. The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program: an update after 6 years. Social Science and Medicine 1993;37(10):1219‐22. - PubMed
Oleske 1992 {published data only}
    1. Oleske DM, Glandon GL, Tancredi DJ, Nassirpour M, Noak JR. Information dissemination and the cesarean birth rate. The Illinois experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1992;8(4):708‐18. - PubMed
Robson 1996 {published data only}
    1. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;174(1 Pt 1):199‐205. - PubMed
Saint 2003 {published data only}
    1. Saint S, Hofer TP, Rose JS, Kaufman SR, McMahon LF Jr. Use of critical pathways to improve efficiency: a cautionary tale. American Journal of Managed Care 2003;9(11):758‐65. - PubMed
Sanavi 2014 {published data only}
    1. Sanavi FS, Ansari‐Moghaddam A, Shovey MF, Rakhshani F. Effective education to decrease elective caesarean section. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 2014;64(5):500‐5. - PubMed
Santerre 1996 {published data only}
    1. Santerre RE. The effect of the ACOG guideline on vaginal births after cesarean. Medical Care Research and Review 1996;53(3):315‐29. - PubMed
Socol 1993 {published data only}
    1. Socol ML, Garcia PM, Peaceman AM, Dooley SL. Reducing cesarean births at a primarily private university hospital. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1748‐58. - PubMed
Tussey 2015 {published data only}
    1. Tussey CM, Botsios E, Gerkin RD, Kelly LA, Gamez J, Mensik J. Reducing length of labor and cesarean surgery rate using a peanut ball for women laboring with an epidural. Journal of Perinatal Education 2015;24(1):16‐24. - PMC - PubMed
van Dillen 2008 {published data only}
    1. Dillen J, Lim F, Rijssel E. Introducing caesarean section audit in a regional teaching hospital in The Netherlands. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2008;139(2):151‐6. - PubMed
Walker 2016 {published data only}
    1. Walker DM, Cohen SR, Fritz J, Olvera‐García M, Zelek ST, Fahey JO, et al. Impact evaluation of PRONTO Mexico: a simulation‐based program in obstetric and neonatal emergencies and team training. Simulation in Healthcare 2016;11(1):1‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Werner 2013 {published data only}
    1. Werner A, Uldbjerg N, Zachariae R, Nohr EA. Effect of self‐hypnosis on duration of labor and maternal and neonatal outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2013;92(7):816‐23. - PubMed
Zanetta 1999 {published data only}
    1. Zanetta G, Tampieri A, Currado I, Regalia A, Nespoli A, Midwife T, et al. Changes in cesarean delivery in an Italian university hospital, 1982‐1996: a comparison with the national trend. Birth 1999;26(3):144‐8. - PubMed
Zhang 2016 {published data only}
    1. Zhang T, Liu C. Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2016;32(3):711‐4. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Jang 2011 {published data only}
    1. Jang WM, Eun SJ, Lee CE, Kim Y. Effect of repeated public releases on cesarean section rates. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2011;44(1):2‐8. - PubMed
Vankan 2015 {published data only}
    1. Vankan E, Schoorel E, Kuijk S, Aardenburg R, Delemarre F, Dirksen C, et al. Patient decision aid with individual risk estimation: An effective tool in choosing the mode of delivery after cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;212:S240‐1.

References to ongoing studies

ACTRN12611000878976 {published data only}
    1. ACTRN12611000878976. The effect of an antenatal decision aid booklet on rate of vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) in women with previous caesarean section [For pregnant women in the first half of their pregnancy with history of previous caesarean and eligible for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), will using a decision aid increase their rate of VBAC compared to using a pamphlet?]. www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=343340 (first received 17 August 2011).
ACTRN12611001214921 {published data only}
    1. ACTRN12611001214921. A randomised controlled trial to determine whether continuity of care increases the rate of attempted vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) [A randomised controlled trial to determine whether midwifery continuity of care increases the rate of attempted vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean section]. anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=347744 (first received 24 November 2011).
ACTRN12613000161729 {published data only}
    1. ACTRN12613000161729. Enhanced care and support in early labour (ecsel) [Enhanced care and support in early labour (ecsel): a randomised controlled trial to reduce caesarean sections for first‐time mothers]. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=335208 (first received 07 February 2013).
IRCT2013111010777N3 {published data only}
    1. IRCT2013111010777N3. A computer based decision aids for mode of delivery (natural delivery or cesarean section) [The impact of a computerized decision aids on the mode of delivery, compared with conventional care]. who.int/trialsearch/Trial3.aspx?trialid=IRCT2013111010777N3 (first received 19 November 2013).
ISRCTN10612254 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN10612254. Improving the organisation of maternal health service delivery, and optimising childbirth, by increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) through enhanced women‐centred care. isrctn.com/ISRCTN10612254 (first received 3 April 2013). - PMC - PubMed
ISRCTN48510263 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN48510263. Appropriate decision for caesarean section in Burkina Faso. isrctn.com/ISRCTN48510263 (first received 12 February 2014).
ISRCTN50041378 {unpublished data only}
    1. ISRCTN50041378. A feasibility study and pilot randomised trial of an intervention designed to reduce unnecessary caesarean section in Ireland. isrctn.com/ISRCTN50041378 (first received 12 February 2018).
NCT02874443 {published data only}
    1. NCT02874443. The REDUCED Trial: REDucing the Utilization of CEsarean Sections for Dystocia (REDUCED). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874443 (first received 22 August 2016).

Additional references

ACOG 2013
    1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Committee Opinion No. 559. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;121:904‐7. - PubMed
ACOG SMFM 2014
    1. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J‐M, Rouse DJ, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal‐Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;210(3):179‐93. - PubMed
Bermúdez‐Tamayo 2018
    1. Bermúdez‐Tamayo C, Johri M, Chaillet N. Budget impact of a program for safely reducing caesarean sections in Canada. Midwifery 2018;60:20‐6. - PubMed
Bernal 2017
    1. Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017;46(1):348‐55. - PMC - PubMed
Betrán 2016a
    1. 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. - PMC - PubMed
Betrán 2016b
    1. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016;123(5):667‐70. - PMC - PubMed
Boatin 2018
    1. Boatin AA, Cullinane F, Torloni MR, Betrán AP. Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review. BJOG 2018;125(1):36‐42. - PMC - PubMed
Bohren 2017
    1. Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Fukuzawa RK, Cuthbert A. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Brown 2013
    1. Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low‐risk women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004907.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Catling‐Paull 2011a
    1. Catling‐Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS. Non‐clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2011;67(8):1662‐76. - PubMed
Catling‐Paull 2011b
    1. Catling‐Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS. Clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2011;67(8):1646‐61. - PubMed
Chaillet 2007
    1. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence‐based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta‐analysis. Birth 2007;34(1):53‐64. - PubMed
Cook 2013
    1. Cook JR, Jarvis S, Knight M, Dhanjal MK. Multiple repeat caesarean section in the UK: incidence and consequences to mother and child. A national, prospective, cohort study. BJOG 2013;120(1):85‐91. - PubMed
Dweik 2014
    1. Dweik D, Girasek E, Mészáros G, Töreki A, Keresztúri A, Pál A. Non‐medical determinants of cesarean section in a medically dominated maternity system. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2014;93(10):1025‐33. - PubMed
EPOC 2015
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy, 2015. Available at epoc.cochrane.org/epoc‐taxonomy.
EPOC 2017
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. Available at epoc.cochrane.org/epoc‐specific‐resources‐review‐authors.
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ 2008;336(7651):995–8. - PMC - PubMed
Hartmann 2012
    1. Hartmann KE, Andrews JC, Jerome RN, Lewis RM, Likis FE, McKoy JN, et al. Strategies to reduce cesarean birth in low‐risk women. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review 2012; Vol. Report No.: 12(13)‐EHC128‐EF.
Hodnett 2012
    1. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hoffmann 2014
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. - PubMed
Hoxha 2017
    1. Hoxha I, Syrogiannouli L, Luta X, Tal K, Goodman DC, Costa BR, et al. Caesarean sections and for‐profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7(2):e013670. - PMC - PubMed
Hsu 2008
    1. Hsu KH, Liao PJ, Hwang CJ. Factors affecting Taiwanese women's choice of Cesarean section. Social Science and Medicine 2008;66(1):201‐9. - PubMed
i‐WIP 2017
    1. The International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i‐WIP) Collaborative Group. Effect of diet and physical activity based interventionsin pregnancy on gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes: meta‐analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. BMJ 2017;358:j3119. - PMC - PubMed
Ji 2015
    1. Ji H, Jiang H, Yang L, Qian X, Tang S. Factors contributing to the rapid rise of caesarean section: a prospective study of primiparous Chinese women in Shanghai. BMJ Open 2015;5(11):e008994. - PMC - PubMed
Johri 2017
    1. Johri M, Ng ESW, Bermudez‐Tamayo C, Hoch JS, Ducruet T, Chaillet N. A cluster‐randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost‐effectiveness analysis. BMC Medicine 2017;15(1):96. - PMC - PubMed
Kabir 2004
    1. Kabir AA, Steinmann WC, Myers L, Khan MM, Herrera EA, Yu S, et al. Unnecessary cesarean delivery in Louisiana: an analysis of birth certificate data. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;190(1):10‐9; discussion 3A. - PubMed
Keag 2018
    1. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long‐term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS Medicine 2018;15(1):e1002494. - PMC - PubMed
Koroukian 1998
    1. Koroukian SM, Trisel B, Rimm AA. Estimating the proportion of unnecessary cesarean sections in Ohio using birth certificate data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(12):1327‐34. - PubMed
Lavis 2009
    1. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence‐informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems 2009;7 Suppl 1:S9. - PMC - PubMed
Lin 2004
    1. Lin HC, Xirasagar S. Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: policy and research implications. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;103(1):128‐36. - PubMed
Lo 2003
    1. Lo JC. Patients' attitudes versus physician' determination: implications for cesarean sections. Social Science and Medicine 2003;57(1):91‐6. - PubMed
Long 2016
    1. Long Q, Allanson ER, Pontre J, Tunçalp Ö, Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM. Onsite midwife‐led birth units (OMBUs) for care around the time of childbirth: a systematic review. BMJ Global Health 2016;1(2):e000096. - PMC - PubMed
Lundgren 2015
    1. Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C, Vehvilainen‐Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Clinician‐centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:16. - PMC - PubMed
Luthy 2003
    1. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW, Leininger CJ. Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;188(6):1579‐85. - PubMed
Marshall 2011
    1. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;205(3):262.e1‐8. - PubMed
Mi 2014
    1. Mi J, Liu F. Rate of caesarean section is alarming in China. Lancet 2014;383(9927):1463‐4. - PubMed
NCC‐WCH 2011
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Caesarean Section. London: RCOG Press, 2011.
NICE 2013
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Caesarean section: Evidence update March 2013. Evidence Update 2013; Vol. 35. - PubMed
Nilsson 2015
    1. Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Smith V, Vehvilainen‐Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Women‐centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): A systematic review. Midwifery 2015;31(7):657‐63. - PubMed
O'Connor 1999
    1. O'Connor AM, Drake ER, Fiset V, Graham ID, Laupacis A, Tugwell P. The Ottawa patient decision aids. Effective Clinical Practice: ECP 1999;2(4):163‐70. - PubMed
Olsen 2012
    1. Olsen O, Clausen JA. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pang 2008
    1. Pang MW, Leung TN, Lau TK, Hang Chung TK. Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preferences for mode of delivery: follow‐up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth 2008;35(2):121‐8. - PubMed
Robson 2001
    1. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 2001;12:23‐39.
Sandall 2016
    1. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwife‐led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Scioscia 2008
    1. Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Cito L, Chironna E, Scatterella D, Selvaggi LE. Social determinants of the increasing caesarean section rate in Italy. Minerva Ginecologica 2008;60(2):115‐20. [PUBMED: 18487961] - PubMed
Thomas 2001
    1. Thomas J, Paranjothy S, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/research‐‐audit/nscs_a... 2001.
Timor‐Tritsch 2012
    1. Timor‐Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;207(1):14‐29. - PubMed
WHO 1985
    1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2(8452):436‐7. - PubMed
Ye 2015
    1. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni MR, Gülmezoglu AM, Betrán AP. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population‐based ecological study with longitudinal data. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2015;123(5):745‐53. - PMC - PubMed
Zwecker 2011
    1. Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: a nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. American Journal of Perinatology 2011;28(4):277‐84. - PubMed
Öst 1988
    1. Öst LG. Applied relaxation: Description of an effective coping technique. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy 1988;17(2):83‐96.

References to other published versions of this review

Khunpradit 2005
    1. Khunpradit S, Lumbiganon P, Jaipukdee J, Laopaiboon M. Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005528] - DOI - PubMed
Khunpradit 2011
    1. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms