medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2007, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2007; 49 (2)

Trends in caesarean sections associated with non-clinical factors in a Birthing Educational Center in Mexico City.

Campero L, Hernández B, Leyva A, Estrada F, Osborne J, Morales S

Language: Spanish
References: 38
Page: 118-125
PDF size: 103.76 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: To describe the trends in caesarian sections (CS) associated with non-clinical factors in women who attended a birthing educational facility, also known as ‘Centro de Educación’, (CEPAPAR) in Mexico City. Methods: Data from 992 births of 847 women that occurred from 1988-2000 were analyzed using linear regression to identify the association between non-clinical factors and time-trends in CS. Results: The overall incidence of CS was 32.8%, with an 8% average annual increase. Until 1994 the percentage of CS remained relatively steady at 30%, increasing to 40% in subsequent years. In analyzing trends in CS and their relationship with non-clinical factors from 1988-2000, the increased incidence of CS during this period was higher among births where no birth attendant was present, for first-time mothers, and in larger hospitals (›50 beds). Conclusions: Results show that the increased incidence of CS is associated with non-clinical factors such as size of the hospital and the presence of a birth attendant. A model of support for women which includes information, counseling, and the presence of a birth attendant during labor can contribute to reducing the risk of unnecessary CS in populations such as that studied.


REFERENCES

  1. Hopkins K. Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Soc Sci Med 2000;51(5):725-740.

  2. Sakala C. Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: Introduction to a symposium. Soc Sci Med 1993;37(10):1177-1198.

  3. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Barros F, Alexander S. Rates and implications of cesarean sections in Latin America: Ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-1402.

  4. La Voz: Cesáreas en Puerto Rico alcanzan 45% [consultado 2006 julio ]. Disponible en: http://img.azcentral.com/lavoz/spanish/health/articles/ health_8106.html.

  5. Fernández-del Castillo C. Las cesáreas en el sector privado. En: Cesáreas, tendencias actuales y perspectivas. México: Comité Promotor para una Maternidad sin Riesgos en México,1997:31-36.

  6. González-Pérez G, Vega-López M, Cabrera-Pivaral C, Muñoz A, Valle A. Cesarean sections in Mexico: Are there too many? Health Policy Plan 2001;16(1):62-67.

  7. Secretaría de Salud. Salud México 2003. Información para la rendición de cuentas. México, DF: SSA, 2003:228

  8. Puentes-Rosas E, Gómez-Dantés O, Garrido-Latorre F. Las cesáreas en México: tendencias, niveles y factores asociados. Salud Publica Mex 2004; 46(1):16-22.

  9. Lira J, Tiscareño A Coria I, Ibaguengoitia F, Quesnel C. Cesárea de repetición: ¿Una cesárea necesaria? Ginecol Obstret Mex 2000;68(5):218-223.

  10. Velasco V, Navarrete E, Pozos JL, Ojeda RI, Cárdenas C, Cardona JA. Indicaciones y justificación de las cesáreas en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro social. Gac Med Mex 2000;136(5):421-431.

  11. Cárdenas R. Complicaciones asociadas a la cesárea: la importancia de un uso módicamente justificado. Gac Med Mex 2002;138(4):357-366.

  12. Lilford RJ, Van Coeverden-de Groot HA, Moore PJ, Gingham P. The relative risks of caesareans section (intrapartum and elective) and vaginal delivery: a detailed analysis exclusive the effects of medical disorders and other acute pre-existing physiological disturbances. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97(10):883-892.

  13. Greene R, Gardeil F, Turner MJ. Long-term effects of cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;176:254-255.

  14. Muylder X. Caesarian sections in developing countries: Some considerations. Health Policy Plan 1993;8(2):102-112.

  15. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS Damush TM, Carney MF Pearson M, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta analysis. Birth 1993;20(1):14-21.

  16. Pérez R, Maulen I, Dewey K. The association between cesarean delivery and breast-feeding outcomes among Mexican women. Am J Public Health 1996;86(6):832-836.

  17. Mutryn C. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: A literature review. Soc Sci Med 1993;37(10):1271-1281.

  18. Bobadilla JL, Godfrey JA, Walker JA. Early neonatal mortality and cesarean delivery in Mexico City. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991:164:22-28.

  19. Cabezas E, Delgado A, Morales A, Pérez G. Comportamiento de la cesárea en la SSA durante el periodo 1990-95. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1998;66(8):335-338.

  20. Romero G, Bribiesca JA, Ramos S, Bravo DE. Morbilidad y mortalidad materno fetal en embarazadas de edad avanzada. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1999;67(6):239-245.

  21. Guzmán A, De Alba AM, Alfaro N. ¿La reducción de cesáreas de 28 a 13% incrementa o no la mortalidad materna y perinatal: la gran duda? Ginecol Obstet Mex 1998;66(3):122-125.

  22. Murray SF, Serani PF. Cesarean birth trends in Chile, 1986 to 1994. Birth 1997;24(4):258-263.

  23. Faúndes A, Cecatti JG. Which policy for caesarian sections in Brazil? An analysis of trends and consequences. Health Policy Plan 1993;8(1):33-42.

  24. Freire EM. Epidemiología de las cesáreas en América Latina. En: Cesáreas, tendencias actuales y perspectivas. México: Comité Promotor por una Maternidad sin Riesgos en México,1997:13-20.

  25. Langer A. Evaluación de un programa para disminuir la frecuencia de las operaciones cesáreas en México. En: Cesáreas, tendencias actuales y perspectivas. México: El Comité Promotor para una Maternidad sin Riesgos en México,1997:65-71.

  26. Ballesté M, Fernández AM. Derechos reproductivos y cesáreas. En: Cesáreas, tendencias actuales y perspectivas. México: El Comité Promotor por una Maternidad sin Riesgo, 1997:55-64.

  27. Campero L, García C, Díaz C, Ortiz O, Reynoso S, Langer A. Alone, I wouldn´t have known what to do: A qualitative study on social support during labor and delivery in Mexico. Soc Sci Med 1998;47(3):395-403.

  28. Campero L, Henández B, Osborne J, Morales S, Ludlow T, Muñoz Ch. Support from a prenatal instructor during childbirth is associated with reduced rates of caesarean section: A Mexican study. Midwifery 2004;20:312-332.

  29. Lamaze Institute for Normal Birth. [Consultado 2006, julio]. Disponible en: http://www.lamaze.org/ Acceso Julio, 2006

  30. Los Hospitales de México. Universo de Hospitales de la República Mexicana. Actualización 2001. [Consultado 2005, marzo]. Disponible en: //www.loshospitales.net» http://www.loshospitales.net

  31. Randall S. The impact of non clinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265:59-63.

  32. Kline J, Arias F. Analysis of factors determining the selection of repeated cesarean section or trial of labor in patients with histories of prior cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 1993;38(4):289-292.

  33. Klaus MH, Kennell JH, Berkowitz G. Maternal assistance and support in labor: Father, nurse, midwife or doula? Clin Cons Obstet Gynaecol 1992;4:211-217.

  34. Scott KD, Berkowitz G, Marshall M. A comparison of intermittent and continuous support during labor. A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:1054-1059.

  35. De Mott RK, Sandmire HF. The Green Bay cesarean section study. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162(6):1593-1602.

  36. Goldman G, Pineault R, Potvin L, Blais R, Bilodeau H. Factors influencing the practice of vaginal birth after cesarean sections. Am J Public Health 1993;83(8):1104-1108.

  37. Quesnel C, Lira J, Ibargüengoitia F, Neri C. Operación cesárea: ¿ciencia o ansiedad? Once años de experiencia institucional. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1997;65(6):247-253.

  38. Trujillo-Hernández B, Tene-Pérez CE, Rios-Silva M. Factores de riesgo para cesárea: un enfoque epidemiológico. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000;68(7):306-311.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com