1887
Volume 2021, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • EISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section (CS) rates have been reported to differ between immigrants and native-born women in high-income countries.

Objective: We assessed the CS rate and its relationship with the CS rate in country of nationality and other explanatory factors among women of different nationalities including Qatari women who underwent deliveries at our hospital to generate evidence that will quantify and help explain the observed CS rates in our hospital.

Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at the second-largest public maternity hospital in Qatar, Al-Wakra Hospital (AWH), data for all births delivered in 2019 were retrieved from the hospital's electronic medical records. The CS rates and the crude and adjusted risks of Caesarean delivery for mothers from each nationality were determined, and the common indications for CS were analyzed based on nationality. The association between nationality and Caesarean delivery was examined using binomial logistic regression analysis, with Qatari women as the reference group. The correlation between CS rate in country of nationality and observed CS rates in Qatar was also examined using Pearson's correlation.

Results: The study population consisted of 4816 births by women of 68 nationalities, of which 4513 births were by women from 25 countries. The highest proportion of deliveries (n-1247, 25.9%) was by Indian women. The frequency of CS was the highest and lowest among Egyptian (49.6%) and Yemeni women (17.9%), respectively. Elective CS was predominantly performed in women of Arab nationalities; the most common indication was a history of previous multiple CSs. Emergency CS was primarily performed in women of Asian and Sub-Saharan African nationalities; the most common indications were failure to progress and fetal distress. For most nationalities, the CS rate in Qatar was associated with those of the countries of nationality.

Conclusions: The observed CS rates varied widely among women of different nationalities. The variation was influenced by maternal factors and medical indications as well as the CS rates in the country of nationality. We posit that cultural preferences, acculturation, and patient expectations influenced observed findings. More efforts are required to reduce primary CS rates and to help women make the most informed decisions regarding modes of delivery.

Key Message: CS rates varied widely among women of different nationalities. The variation was influenced by medical indications, maternal preferences, and CS rate in countries of nationality. The solution to reducing CS rates should be a culturally informed response.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2021.69
2021-11-28
2022-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qmj/2021/3/qmj.2021.69.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2021.69&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Boatin AA, Schlotheuber A, Betran AP, et al. Within country inequalities in Caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries. BMJ 2018; 360: k55. PMID: 29367432.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in Caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018; 392:(10155):1341–1348. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, Gibbons D, Kelly NM, Kennedy HP, Kidanto H, Taylor P, Temmerman M. Short-term and long-term effects of Caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018 Oct 13; 392:(10155):1349–1357. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5.PMID: 30322585.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with Caesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2018; 15:(1):e1002494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing Caesarean section rates. Epidemiology. 2007 Jul; 18:(4):485–6. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318068646a. PMID: 17568221.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Tadevosyan M, Ghazaryan A, Harutyunyan A, Petrosyan V, Atherly A, Hekimian K. Factors contributing to rapidly increasing rates of Caesarean section in Armenia: a partially mixed concurrent quantitative-qualitative equal status study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19:(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-2158-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. The Lancet. Stemming the global Caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018 Oct 13; 392:(10155):1279. doi: 10.1016/S0140–6736(18)32394-8. PMID: 30322560.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Vangen S, Stoltenberg C, Skrondal A, Magnus P, Stray-Pedersen B. Caesarean section among immigrants in Norway. Acta Obs Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 553–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Tunçalp Ö, Vogel JP, Gülmezoglu AM. What is the optimal rate of Caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015 Jun 21;12:57. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6. PMID: 26093498; PMCID: PMC4496821.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ye J, Betrán AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary Caesarean delivery. Birth. 2014 Sep; 41:(3):237–44. doi: 10.1111/birt.12104.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu S, Wang J, Zhang L, Zhang X. Caesarean section rate and cost control effectiveness of case payment reform in the new cooperative medical scheme for delivery: evidence from Xi County, China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18:(1):66. Published 2018 Mar 9. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-1698-0.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Løkkegaard E, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Smárason A, Bjarnadóttir RI, Másdóttir BB, Källén K, Klungsoyr K, Albrechtsen S, Skjeldestad FE, Tapper AM. Caesarean section trends in the Nordic Countries - a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 May; 96:(5):607–616. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13108. Epub 2017 Mar 24. PMID: 28176334.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Qatar national health accounts report 2013. Doha: Supreme Council of Health; 2015 (http://www.sch.gov.qa/publications/publications, accessed 24 February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Rasmussen TD, Villadsen SF, Andersen PK, Clausen TD, Nybo Andersen AM. Ethnic differences in the risk of Caesarean section: a Danish population-based register study 2004–2015. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19:(1):194.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Zlotnik H. The Global Dimensions of Female Migration. Migration policy.org. (2003-03-01) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/global-dimensions-female-migration. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Demographics of Qatar. World Population Dashboard. United Nations Population Fund https://www.unfpa.org/data/world-population-dashboard. Accessed March 9, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Río I, Castelló A, Barona C, et al. Caesarean section rates in immigrant and native women in Spain: the importance of geographical origin and type of hospital for delivery. Eur J Public Health 2010; 20:(5):524–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Minsart AF, De Spiegelaere M, Englert Y, Buekens P. Classification of Caesarean sections among immigrants in Belgium. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92:(2):204–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sørbye IK, Daltveit AK, Sundby J, Stoltenberg C, Vangen S. Caesarean section by immigrants’ length of residence in Norway: a population-based study. Eur J Public Health 2015; 25:(1):78–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku135.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Teixeira C, Correia S, Victora CG, Barros H. The Brazilian preference: Caesarean delivery among immigrants in Portugal. PLoS One 2013; 8:(3):e60168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060168.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, M., Xue, M., Yang, Q. et al. Association between migration status and caesarean section delivery based on a modified Robson classification in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 215 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03708-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bakken KS, Stray-Pedersen B. Emergency Caesarean section among women in Robson groups one and three: a comparison study of immigrant and Norwegian women giving birth in a low-risk maternity hospital in Norway. Health Care Women Int. 2019; 40:(7-9): 761–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG. 2016; 123:(5):667–670. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13526.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Calderon-Margalit R, Sherman D, Manor O, Kurzweil Y. Adverse Perinatal Outcomes among Immigrant Women from Ethiopia in Israel. Birth 2015; 42:(2):125–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hussein AM, Ramzy A, Jauniaux E. Increasing caesarean delivery rates in Egypt: the impact of maternal request. BJOG. 2021 Apr; 128:(5):807. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16494. Epub 2020 Sep 29. PMID: 32920983.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mogren I, Lindqvist M, Petersson K, et al. Maternal height and risk of Caesarean section in singleton births in Sweden-A population-based study using data from the Swedish Pregnancy Register 2011 to 2016. PLoS One. 2018; 13:(5):e0198124. Published 2018 May 29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198124.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Vangen S, Stray-Pedersen B, Skrondal A, Magnus P, Stoltenberg C. High risk of Caesarean section among ethnic Filipinos: an effect of the paternal contribution to birthweight? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Feb; 82:(2):192–3. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00075.x. PMID: 12648185.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gagnon AJ, Van Hulst A, Merry L, George A, Saucier JF, Stanger E, Wahoush O, Stewart DE. Caesarean section rate differences by migration indicators. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Apr; 287:(4):633–9. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2609-7. Epub 2012 Nov 7. PMID: 23132050.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Merry L, Vangen S, Small R. Caesarean births among migrant women in high-income countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Apr; 32:88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 14. PMID: 26458998.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary Caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar; 210:(3):179–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026. PMID: 24565430.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. UNICEF Data Warehouse. https://data.unicef.org/dv_index/Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  33. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, Yogasingam S, Taljaard M, Agarwal S, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Khunpradit S, Lumbiganon P, Gruen RL, Betran AP. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary Caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 28; 9:(9):CD005528. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3. PMID: 30264405; PMCID: PMC6513634.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Benchimol, E. I., Smeeth, L., Guttmann, A., Harron, K., Moher, D., Petersen, I., Sørensen, H.T., von Elm, E., Langan, S.M., & RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS medicine, 2015; 12:(10), e1001885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 .
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lundgren I, Morano S, Nilsson C, Sinclair M, Begley C. Cultural perspectives on vaginal birth after previous Caesarean section in countries with high and low rates - a hermeneutic study. Women Birth 2020; 33:(4):e339–47.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2021.69
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2021.69
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error