A J Macfarlane1, B Blondel2, A D Mohangoo3, M Cuttini4, J Nijhuis5, Z Novak6, H S Ólafsdóttir7, J Zeitlin2. 1. Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University London, London, UK. 2. INSERM, Obstetrical Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics (U1153), Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 3. Department of Child Health, TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, the Netherlands. 4. Research Unit of Perinatal Epidemiology, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 6. Perinatology Unit, University Medical Centre, Llubjana University, Llubjana, Slovenia. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Landspitali University Hospital, Landspitali v/Hringbraut, Iceland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To use data from routine sources to compare rates of obstetric intervention in Europe both overall and for subgroups at higher risk of intervention. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of aggregated routine data. SETTING: Thirty-one European countries or regions contributing data on mode of delivery to the Euro-Peristat project. POPULATION: Births in participating countries in 2010. METHODS: Countries provided aggregated data about overall rates of obstetric intervention and about caesarean section rates for specified subgroups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of delivery. RESULTS: Rates of caesarean section ranged from 14.8% to 52.2% of all births and rates of instrumental vaginal delivery ranged from 0.5% to 16.4%. Overall, there was no association between rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and rates of caesarean section, but similarities were observed between some countries that are geographically close and may share common traditions of practice. Associations were observed between caesarean section rates for women with breech and vertex births and with singleton and multiple births but patterns of association for women who had and had not had previous caesarean sections were more complex. CONCLUSIONS: The persisting wide variations in caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery rates point to a lack of consensus about practice and raise questions for further investigation. Further research is needed to explore the impact of differences in clinical guidelines, healthcare systems and their financing and parents' and professionals' attitudes to care at delivery.
OBJECTIVE: To use data from routine sources to compare rates of obstetric intervention in Europe both overall and for subgroups at higher risk of intervention. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of aggregated routine data. SETTING: Thirty-one European countries or regions contributing data on mode of delivery to the Euro-Peristat project. POPULATION: Births in participating countries in 2010. METHODS: Countries provided aggregated data about overall rates of obstetric intervention and about caesarean section rates for specified subgroups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of delivery. RESULTS: Rates of caesarean section ranged from 14.8% to 52.2% of all births and rates of instrumental vaginal delivery ranged from 0.5% to 16.4%. Overall, there was no association between rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and rates of caesarean section, but similarities were observed between some countries that are geographically close and may share common traditions of practice. Associations were observed between caesarean section rates for women with breech and vertex births and with singleton and multiple births but patterns of association for women who had and had not had previous caesarean sections were more complex. CONCLUSIONS: The persisting wide variations in caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery rates point to a lack of consensus about practice and raise questions for further investigation. Further research is needed to explore the impact of differences in clinical guidelines, healthcare systems and their financing and parents' and professionals' attitudes to care at delivery.
Authors: Karen W Yeh; Di He; Johnni Hansen; Catherine L Carpenter; Beate Ritz; Jorn Olsen; Julia E Heck Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Sinéad M O'Neill; Eileen A Curran; Christina Dalman; Louise C Kenny; Patricia M Kearney; Gerard Clarke; John F Cryan; Timothy G Dinan; Ali S Khashan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Sofie A I Lindquist; Neel Shah; Charlotte Overgaard; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Karin Glavind; Thomas Larsen; Avery Plough; Grace Galvin; Aage Knudsen Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Emily J Hotton; Erik Lenguerrand; Mary Alvarez; Stephen O'Brien; Tim J Draycott; Joanna F Crofts Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: M Delnord; K Szamotulska; A D Hindori-Mohangoo; B Blondel; A J Macfarlane; N Dattani; C Barona; S Berrut; I Zile; R Wood; L Sakkeus; M Gissler; J Zeitlin Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2016-01-10 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Ana Paula Esteves-Pereira; Catherine Deneux-Tharaux; Marcos Nakamura-Pereira; Monica Saucedo; Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle; Maria do Carmo Leal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240