Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

Open access
Khunpradit, Suthit, Tavender, Emma, Lumbiganon, Pisake, Laopaiboon, Malinee, Wasiak, Jason, Gruen, Russell L·2011·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are steadily increasing globally. The factors contributing to these observed increases are complex. Non-clinical interventions, those applied independent of patient care in a clinical encounter, may have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010); EMBASE (1947 to March 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) with at least two intervention and control sites, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) where the intervention time was clearly defined and there were at least three data points before and three after the intervention. Studies evaluated non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section rates. Participants included pregnant women and their families, healthcare providers who work with expectant mothers, communities and advocacy groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the quality and abstracted data of all eligible studies using a standardised data extraction form, modified from the Cochrane EPOC checklists. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies in this review.Six studies specifically targeted pregnant women. Two RCTs were shown to be effective in reducing caesarean section rates: a nurse-led relaxation training programme for women with a fear or anxiety of childbirth and birth preparation sessions. However, both RCTs were small in size and targeted younger mothers with their first pregnancies. There is insufficient evidence that prenatal education and support programmes, computer patient decision-aids, decision-aid booklets and intensive group therapy are effective.Ten studies targeted health professionals. Three of these studies were effective in reducing caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with mandatory second opinion resulted in a small, statistically significant reduction in total caesarean section rates (adjusted risk difference (RD) -1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -0.1); this reduction was predominately in intrapartum sections. An ITS study of mandatory second opinion and peer review feedback at department meetings found statistically significant results at 48 months for reducing repeat caesarean section rates (change in level was -6.4%; 95% CI -9.7% to -3.1% and change in slope -1.14%; 95% CI -1.9% to -0.3%) but not for total caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with support from local opinion leaders increased the proportion of women with a previous caesarean section being offered a trial of labour (absolute difference 16.8%) and the number who had a vaginal birth (VBAC rates) (absolute difference 13.5%). The P values are, however, not reported due to unit of analysis errors. There was insufficient evidence that audit and feedback, training of public health nurses, insurance reform, external peer review and legislative changes are effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of guidelines with mandatory second opinion can lead to a small reduction in caesarean section rates, predominately in intrapartum sections. Peer review, including pre-caesarean consultation, mandatory secondary opinion and postcaesarean surveillance can lead to a reduction in repeat caesarean section rates. Guidelines disseminated with endorsement and support from local opinion leaders may increase the proportion of women with previous caesarean sections being offered a trial of labour in certain settings. Nurse-led relaxation classes and birth preparation classes may reduce caesarean section rates in low-risk pregnancies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd005528.pub2

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Althabe, 2004, Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised control trial, Lancet, 363, 1934, 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16406-4 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bastani, 2005, 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, 50, e36, 10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.11.008 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bastani, 2006, Does relaxation education in anxious primigravid Iranian women influence adverse pregnancy outcomes? A randomised controlled trial, Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 20, 138, 10.1097/00005237-200604000-00007 · DOI
  4. Bickell, 1996, Effect of external peer review on cesarean delivery rates: a statewide program, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 87, 664, 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00024-5 · DOI
  5. Elferink-Stinkens, 2002, Randomised clinical trial on the effect of the Dutch obstetric peer review system, European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 102, 21, 10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00553-X · doi:10.1016/s0301-2115(01)00553-x
  6. Fraser, 1997, Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program, American Journal of Obstetetrics and Gynecology, 176, 419, 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70509-X · DOI
  7. Hemminki, 2008, Special features of health services and register based trials - experiences from a randomised trial of childbirth classes, BMC Health Services Research, 8, 126, 10.1186/1472-6963-8-126 · DOI
  8. Keeler, 1996, Equalizing physician fees had little effect on cesarean rates, Medical Care Research and Review, 53, 465, 10.1177/107755879605300405 · DOI
  9. Liang, 2004, Effect of peer review and trial of labor on lowering cesarean section rates, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 67, 281
  10. Lo, 2008, Financial incentives do not always work - an example of cesarean sections in Taiwan, Health Policy, 88, 121, 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.02.013 · DOI
  11. Lomas, 1991, Opinion leaders vs adult and feedback to implement practice guidelines-delivery after previous cesarean section, JAMA, 265, 2202, 10.1001/jama.1991.03460170056033 · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460170056033 · Paper page
  12. Mehdizadeh, 2005, Evaluation of the impact of birth preparation courses on the health of the mother and the newborn, American Journal of Perinatology, 22, 7, 10.1055/s-2004-837738 · DOI
  13. Montgomery, 2004, The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section [ISRCTN84367722], BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 4, 25, 10.1186/1471-2393-4-25 · DOI
  14. Montgomery, 2007, Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, 334, 1305, 10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Poma, 1998, Effect of departmental policies on cesarean delivery rates: a community hospital experience, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 91, 1013
  16. Saisto, 2001, A randomized controlled trial of intervention in fear of childbirth, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 98, 820
  17. Shorten, 2005, Making choices for childbirth: a randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean, Birth, 32, 252, 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Studnicki, 1997, The impact of legislatively imposed practice guidelines on cesarean section rates: the Florida experience, American Journal of Medical Quality, 12, 62, 10.1177/0885713X9701200111 · DOI
  19. Calvo, 2009, Effectiveness of a multifaceted strategy to improve the appropriateness of cesarean sections, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica, 88, 842, 10.1080/00016340903015313 · DOI
  20. Chittithavorn, 2006, Clinical practice guideline for cesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 89, 735
  21. David, 2001, 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, 108, 919, 10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00218-2 · doi:10.1016/s0306-5456(01)00218-2
  22. Ganji, 2006, Effect of a participatory intervention to reduce the number of unnecessary caesarean sections performed in Shahrekord of Iran, Journal of Medical Science, 6, 690, 10.3923/jms.2006.690.692 · DOI
  23. Gregory, 1999, Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the cesarean section rate, Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 25, 619, 10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30476-X · DOI
  24. Gruber, 1999, Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery, Journal of Health Economics, 18, 473, 10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00009-0 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Howell, 2004, The impact of Medicaid managed care on pregnant women in Ohio: a cohort analysis, Health Services Research, 39, 825, 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00260.x · DOI
  26. Iglesias, 1991, Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 145, 1459
  27. Kazandjian, 1998, Cesarean section rates: effects of participation in a performance measurement project, Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 24(4), 187, 10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30371-6 · DOI
  28. Kim, 2005, Are league tables controlling epidemic of caesarean sections in South Korea?, BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 112, 607, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00481.x · DOI
  29. Kiwankura, 1993, Influence of audit and feedback on the use of caesarean section in a geographically defined population, European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 50, 59, 10.1016/0028-2243(93)90165-9 · DOI
  30. Kongnyuy, 2008, Effect of audit and feedback on the availability, utilisation and quality of emergency obstetric care in three districts in Malawi, Women and Birth, 21, 149, 10.1016/j.wombi.2008.08.002 · DOI
  31. Koroukian, 2001, 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, 7(2), 134
  32. Kunthonkitidej, 2001, Self-evaluation of obstetricians by delivery data to reduce cesarean section rate in Chai Nat Hospital, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 84, 1587
  33. Lagrew, 1996, Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 174, 184-91, 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70392-7 · DOI
  34. Lee, 2007, Effects of the DRG-based prospective payment system operated by the voluntarily participating providers on the cesarean section rates in Korea, Health Policy, 81, 300, 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.05.019 · DOI
  35. Main, 1999, Reducing cesarean birth rates with data-driven quality improvement activities, Pediatrics, 103, 374, 10.1542/peds.103.SE1.374 · DOI
  36. Misra, 2008, Impact of the HealthChoice Program on cesarean section and vaginal birth after c-section deliveries: a retrospective analysis, Maternal Child Health Journal, 12, 266, 10.1007/s10995-007-0234-z · DOI
  37. Morhason-Bello, 2009, 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, 49, 145, 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.00983.x · DOI
  38. Myers, 1993, The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program: an update after 6 years, Social Science and Medicine, 37, 1219, 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90333-Y · DOI
  39. Oleske, 1992, Information dissemination and the cesarean birth rate. The Illinois experience, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 8(4), 708, 10.1017/S0266462300002397 · DOI
  40. Robson, 1996, Using the medical audit to reducing cesarean section rates, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 174, 199, 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70394-0 · DOI
  41. Saint, 2003, Use of critical pathways to improve efficiency: a cautionary tale, American Journal of Managed Care, 9, 758
  42. Santerre, 1996, The effect of the ACOG guideline on vaginal births after cesarean, Medical Care Research and Review, 53, 315, 10.1177/107755879605300306 · DOI
  43. Socol, 1993, Reducing cesarean births at a primarily private university hospital, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 168, 1748, 10.1016/0002-9378(93)90686-D · DOI
  44. Dillen, 2008, Introducing caesarean section audit in a regional teaching hospital in The Netherlands, European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 139, 151, 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.01.008 · DOI
  45. Zanetta, 1999, Changes in cesarean delivery in an Italian university hospital, 1982-1996: a comparison with the national trend, Birth, 26, 144, 10.1046/j.1523-536x.1999.00144.x · DOI
  46. Albrechtsen, 2009, Targeted intervention reduces the Cesarean section rate [Norwegian], Tidsskrift for den Norske L'geforening, 129, 1775, 10.4045/tidsskr.09.0866 · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.09.0866
  47. Chang, 2005, Changes in the newborn delivery practice and neonatal outcomes as financing changed in Los Angeles County and Orange County, California, Managed Care Interface, 10, 53
  48. Tsai, 2006, Impact of case payment on physicians practicing vaginal birth after cesarean section [Chinese], Taiwan Journal of Public Health, 25, 283
  49. Belizan, 1999, Rate and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study, BMJ, 319, 1397, 10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1397 · DOI · Paper page
  50. BEMFAM, 1997, Brasil, Pesquisa Nacional sobre Demografia e Saude - 1996
  51. Brown III, 1996, Physician demand for leisure: implications for caesarean section rates, Journal of Health Economics, 15, 223
  52. Cai, 1998, Increased cesarean section rate and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China, American Journal of Public Health, 88, 777, 10.2105/AJPH.88.5.777 · doi:10.2105/ajph.88.5.777
  53. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group The Data Collection Checklist 2002
  54. Government Statistical, 2001, NHS Maternity Statistics, England 1995-96 to 1997-98
  55. Higgins JPT Green S (editors) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009] The Cochrane Collaboration 2009 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Hodnett, 2011, Continuous support for women during childbirth, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Hsu, 2008, Factors affecting Taiwanese women's choice of caesarean section, Social Science & Medicine, 66, 201, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.030 · DOI
  58. Kabir, 2004, Unnecessary cesarean delivery in Louisiana: an analysis of birth certificate data, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 190, 10, 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.009 · DOI
  59. Koroukian, 1998, Estimating the proportion of unnecessary cesarean sections in Ohio using birth certificate data, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1327, 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00125-5 · DOI
  60. Lo, 2003, Patients' attitudes versus physician' determination: implications for caesarean sections, Social Science & Medicine, 57, 91, 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00301-5 · DOI
  61. Macfarlane, 2000, Birth counts: statistics of pregnancy and childbirth
  62. Mayor, 2002, Caesarean section rate in England reaches 22%, BMJ, 324, 1118
  63. Murray, 2000, Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study, BMJ, 321, 1501, 10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1501 · DOI · Paper page
  64. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, 2004, Caesarean section
  65. Norton, 1987, Comparisons of national cesarean-section rates, New England Journal of Medicine, 316, 386, 10.1056/NEJM198702123160706 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Notzon, 1994, Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170, 495, 10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70217-9 · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70217-9
  67. Pang, 2008, Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preferences for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study, Birth, 35, 121, 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00225.x · DOI
  68. Ramsay, 2003, Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19, 613, 10.1017/S0266462303000576 · DOI · Paper page
  69. The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2011
  70. Sakala, 1993, Midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth settings: how do they reduce unnecessary cesarean section births?, Social Science and Medicine, 37, 1233, 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90335-2 · DOI
  71. Scioscia, 2008, Social determinants of the increasing caesarean section rate in Italy, Minerva Ginecologica, 60, 115
  72. Teerawattananon, 2003, Twelve years of pattern of hospital delivery in Thailand:1990-2001: a national survey, Journal of Health Science, 12, 1
  73. Thomas, 2001, National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report
  74. Tussing, 1992, The caesarean decision in New York State, 1986, Medical Care, 30, 529, 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00006 · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00006
  75. Walker, 2002, Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence, Birth, 29, 28, 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.00153.x · DOI
  76. World Health Organization, 1985, Appropriate technology for birth, Lancet, 2, 436
  77. Wu, 2000, Cesarean delivery in Shantou, China: a retrospective analysis of 1922 women, Birth, 27, 86, 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00086.x · DOI

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Khunpradit, S., Tavender, E., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Wasiak, J., & Gruen, R. L.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-15
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
CD005528-CD005528
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2151199070
Cited by
236
References
6
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd005528.pub2
The paper
Khunpradit, S., Tavender, E., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Wasiak, J., & Gruen, R. L. (2011). Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005528.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.