Disclosing possible nonmedically indicated cesarean sections in 5 high-volume urban maternity units in Tanzania: a criterion-based clinical audit

Sarah Hansen BSc. Med , Monica Lauridsen Kujabi MD, PhD , Rikke Damkjær Maimburg PhD , Anna Macha MD , Luzango Maembe MD , Idrissa Kabanda MD , Manyanga Hudson MD , Rukia Juma Msumi MD , Mtingele Sangalala MD , Natasha Housseine MD, PhD , Brenda Sequeira D'mello MD, PhD , Kidanto Hussein MD, PhD , Thomas van den Akker MD, PhD , Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch PhD , Nanna Maaløe MD, PhD
{"title":"Disclosing possible nonmedically indicated cesarean sections in 5 high-volume urban maternity units in Tanzania: a criterion-based clinical audit","authors":"Sarah Hansen BSc. Med ,&nbsp;Monica Lauridsen Kujabi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Rikke Damkjær Maimburg PhD ,&nbsp;Anna Macha MD ,&nbsp;Luzango Maembe MD ,&nbsp;Idrissa Kabanda MD ,&nbsp;Manyanga Hudson MD ,&nbsp;Rukia Juma Msumi MD ,&nbsp;Mtingele Sangalala MD ,&nbsp;Natasha Housseine MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Brenda Sequeira D'mello MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Kidanto Hussein MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Thomas van den Akker MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch PhD ,&nbsp;Nanna Maaløe MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Globally, the cesarean section rate has increased dramatically with many cesarean sections being performed on questionable medical indications. Particularly in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the cesarean section rate is currently increasing rapidly. This potentially undermines the positive momentum of increased facility births and may be a central contributor to a growing \"urban disadvantage\" in maternal and perinatal health, which is seen in some settings.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess to what extent cesarean section indications follow evidence-based, locally co-created audit criteria in five urban, high-volume maternity units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and identify reasons contributing to nonmedically indicated cesarean sections.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted, from October 1st, 2021 to August 31st, 2022. A criterion-based audit with pre-defined, localized audit criteria was used to examine the clinical case-files of all women who gave birth by cesarean section during 3-month periods at the 5 maternity units. Primary outcomes were the cesarean section rate, indications for cesarean section, and proportion of nonmedically indicated cesarean sections. The PartoMa study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04685668).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, the cesarean section rate was 31.5% (2949/9364), of which 2674/2949 (90.7%) cesarean sections had available data for analysis. Main indications were previous cesarean section (1133/2674; 42.4%), prolonged labor (746/2674; 27.9%), and fetal distress (554/2674; 20.7%). Overall, 1061/2674 (39.7%) did not comply with audit criteria at the time cesarean section was decided. Main reasons were one previous cesarean section with no trial of labor (526/1061; 49.6%); reported prolonged labor without actual slow progress (243/1061; 22.9%); and fetal distress with normal fetal heart rate at time of decision (211/1061; 19.9%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Two in 5 cesarean sections were categorized as nonmedically indicated at time of decision. Particularly, fear of poor outcomes and delay in accessing emergency surgery may cause resource-consuming \"defensive decision-making\" for cesarean section. Investments in conducive urban maternity units are crucial to ensure safe vaginal births and to reach a population-based approach that provides best possible timely care for all with the limited resources available.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":"5 1","pages":"Article 100437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786107/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266657782400131X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Globally, the cesarean section rate has increased dramatically with many cesarean sections being performed on questionable medical indications. Particularly in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the cesarean section rate is currently increasing rapidly. This potentially undermines the positive momentum of increased facility births and may be a central contributor to a growing "urban disadvantage" in maternal and perinatal health, which is seen in some settings.

Objective

To assess to what extent cesarean section indications follow evidence-based, locally co-created audit criteria in five urban, high-volume maternity units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and identify reasons contributing to nonmedically indicated cesarean sections.

Study Design

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted, from October 1st, 2021 to August 31st, 2022. A criterion-based audit with pre-defined, localized audit criteria was used to examine the clinical case-files of all women who gave birth by cesarean section during 3-month periods at the 5 maternity units. Primary outcomes were the cesarean section rate, indications for cesarean section, and proportion of nonmedically indicated cesarean sections. The PartoMa study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04685668).

Results

Overall, the cesarean section rate was 31.5% (2949/9364), of which 2674/2949 (90.7%) cesarean sections had available data for analysis. Main indications were previous cesarean section (1133/2674; 42.4%), prolonged labor (746/2674; 27.9%), and fetal distress (554/2674; 20.7%). Overall, 1061/2674 (39.7%) did not comply with audit criteria at the time cesarean section was decided. Main reasons were one previous cesarean section with no trial of labor (526/1061; 49.6%); reported prolonged labor without actual slow progress (243/1061; 22.9%); and fetal distress with normal fetal heart rate at time of decision (211/1061; 19.9%).

Conclusion

Two in 5 cesarean sections were categorized as nonmedically indicated at time of decision. Particularly, fear of poor outcomes and delay in accessing emergency surgery may cause resource-consuming "defensive decision-making" for cesarean section. Investments in conducive urban maternity units are crucial to ensure safe vaginal births and to reach a population-based approach that provides best possible timely care for all with the limited resources available.
披露坦桑尼亚5个高容量城市产科单位可能的非医学指诊剖宫产:基于标准的临床审计。
背景:在全球范围内,剖宫产率急剧上升,许多剖宫产是在可疑的医学指征下进行的。特别是在撒哈拉以南非洲的城市地区,剖宫产率目前正在迅速上升。这可能会破坏设施分娩增加的积极势头,并可能是在某些情况下产妇和围产期保健方面日益处于“城市劣势”的主要原因。目的:评估坦桑尼亚达累斯萨拉姆五个城市大容量产科单位的剖宫产指证在多大程度上遵循了当地共同制定的循证审计标准,并确定导致非医学指证剖宫产的原因。研究设计:这是一项回顾性横断面研究,研究时间为2021年10月1日至2022年8月31日。采用基于标准的审计,采用预定义的本地化审计标准,检查5个产科单位3个月内所有剖宫产妇女的临床病例档案。主要结局是剖宫产率、剖宫产指征和非医学指征剖宫产的比例。PartoMa研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册(NCT04685668)。结果:总体剖宫产率为31.5%(2949/9364),其中有资料可查的剖宫产2674/2949例(90.7%)。主要指征为既往剖宫产(1133/2674;42.4%),产程延长(746/2674;27.9%),胎儿窘迫(554/2674;20.7%)。总体而言,1061/2674例(39.7%)在决定剖宫产时不符合审计标准。主要原因是有1次剖宫产手术,未试产(526/1061;49.6%);报告长时间分娩,但实际进展缓慢(243/1061;22.9%);胎儿窘迫时胎儿心率正常(211/1061;19.9%)。结论:五分之二的剖宫产手术在决定时被归类为非医学指征。特别是,对不良结果的恐惧和获得紧急手术的延误可能导致对剖宫产进行耗费资源的“防御性决策”。投资于有利的城市产科单位对于确保安全阴道分娩和实现以人口为基础的方法至关重要,这种方法可以在现有资源有限的情况下为所有人提供尽可能及时的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信