Analysis of ways of delivery in the different health scenarios in Uruguay

Keywords: PARTURITION, CESAREAN SECTION, PREVAENCE, ROBSON CLASSIFICATION, HEALTH SERVICES

Abstract

Background:

In Uruguay, the Ministry of Public Health has set the reduction of unnecessary C-sections as one of the “National Health Goals”, as it considers this a public health issue.

Objectives:

To analyse the C-section rates by health sector: the private sector versus the public sector and Montevideo versus the rest of the country, using the Robson classification and an input to be used to reduce the rate.

Method:

Transversal descriptive study that categorizes every birth in Uruguay during 2017 according to the Robson criterion in one of the 10 groups, depending on the healthcare center and the geographical place of birth, reporting the relative size, the C-section rate and the absolute and relative contributions of each group to the global CS rate.

Results:

In 2017 the CS rare was 44%. The groups that contributed the most to the global CS rate (70% of the CS in the country) were the following: women with previous CS, elective CS or failed induced labor in nulliparous women and the term nulliparous women with spontaneous initiation of labor group.

After adjusting the prognostic variables, the possibility of ending up in CS in the private sector was 18% higher than in the public sector, without there being any differences in terms of the perinatal results. CS rates by Robson group in Montevideo and the rest of the country are very similar.

Conclusions:

Vaginal birth must be encouraged after a CS, elective CS and unnecessary induction of labor must be avoided, and the number of first CS needs to be reduced. These are the measures proposed to reduce the unnecessary CS rates. Clinical guidelines based on the best scientific evidence that systematize these interventions will contribute to the implementation of changes.

References

(1) Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán J, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006; 33(4):270-7.

(2) Ye J, Betrán A, Guerrero Vela M, Souza J, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth 2014; 41(3):237-44.

(3) Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P, Langer M. Elective cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82(9):834-40.

(4) Betrán A, Ye J, Moller A, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu A, Torloni M. The Increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016; 11(2):e0148343. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.

(5) Uruguay. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Documento técnico de maternidades. Montevideo: MSP, 2012. Disponible en: http://www.msp.gub.uy/sites/default/files/archivos_adjuntos/Documento%20t%C3%A9cnico%20de%20maternidades.pdf. (Consulta: 21 abril 2018).

(6) Uruguay. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Presentación de Objetivos Sanitarios Nacionales 2020. Montevideo: MSP, 2015. Disponible en:

http://www.msp.gub.uy/noticia/presentaci%C3%B3n-de-objetivos-sanitarios-nacionales-2020. (Consulta: 12 mayo 2018).

(7) Uruguay. Universidad de la República. Consejo de la Facultad de Medicina. Exp. Nº

-001918-15. Montevideo, 28 de octubre de 2015.

(8) Robson M, Scudamore I, Walsh S. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174(1 Pt 1):199-205.

(9) Chaillet N, Dubé E, Dugas M, Francoeur D, Dubé J, Gagnon S, et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators towards implementing guidelines to reduce caesarean section rates in Quebec. Bull World Health Organ 2007; 85(10):791-7.

(10) Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001; 12(1):23-39.

(11) Betran A, Torloni M, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu A. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG 2016; 123(5):667-70. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526.

(12) FIGO Working Group on challenges in care of mothers and infants during labour and delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 135(2):232-3.

(13) Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27(2):297-308.

(14) Uruguay. Ministerio de Salud Púbica. Departamento de Estadísticas Vitales. Estadísticas vitales: procesamiento de nacimientos. Montevideo: MSP, 2015. Disponible en: http://colo1.msp.gub.uy/redbin/RpWebEngine.exe/Portal?BASE=VITAL_NAC&lang=esp. (Consulta: 1 agosto 2018).

(15) Uruguay. Ministerio de Salud. Área Economía de la Salud. Informe cobertura poblacional del SNIS según prestador 2017. Montevideo: MSP, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-salud-publica/comunicacion/publicaciones/informe-cobertura-poblacional-del-snis-segun-prestador-2017. (Consulta: 12 mayo 2018).

(16) Carlson N, Corwin E, Hernandez T, Holt E, Lowe N, Hurt K. Association between provider type and cesarean birth in healthy nulliparous laboring women: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2018; 45(2):159-68.

(17) R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R CORE TEAM, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.r-project.org/. (Consulta: 12 mayo 2018).

(18) Cabella W, coord. Análisis de situación en población Uruguay. Montevideo: UNFPA-Comisión Sectorial de Población, 2012.

(19) Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira A, Domingues R, Torres J, Dias M, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health 2016; 13(Suppl 3):128.

(20) Fatusic J, Hudic I, Fatusic Z, Zildzic-Moralic A, Zivkovic M. Cesarean section rate analysis in University Hospital Tuzla-according to Robson's Classification. Med Arch 2016; 70(3):213-6.

(21) Kazmi T, Saiseema S5th, Khan S. Analysis of cesarean section rate - according to Robson's 10-group Classification. Oman Med J 2012; 27(5):415-7.

(22) Stavrou E, Ford J, Shand A, Morris J, Roberts C. Epidemiology and trends for caesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11:8.

(23) Zhang J, Landy H, Branch D, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory K, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116(6):1281-7.

(24) Spong C, Berghella V, Wenstrom K, Mercer B, Saade G. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120(5):1181-93.

(25) Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell. Hospital de la Mujer. Departamento Médico Obstétrico Maternidad "Augusto Tourenne". Protocolos clínicos en la maternidad, tomo 1: atención integral, humanizada e institucional de la mujer en trabajo de parto y parto y del recién nacido. Montevideo: UNFPA, 2017.

Published
2019-05-27
How to Cite
1.
Briozzo L, Tomasso G, Colistro V. Analysis of ways of delivery in the different health scenarios in Uruguay. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2019May27 [cited 2024Nov.25];35(2):94-104. Available from: http://www2.rmu.org.uy/ojsrmu311/index.php/rmu/article/view/65