ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Reducing caesarean rates in a public maternity hospital by implementing a plan of action: a quality improvement report.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responses to increased rates of caesarean births.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Article
- Reducing caesarean section rates in Robson groups 1 and 3: a quality improvement initiative in a private Brazilian hospital.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Cesarean section in Suriname using robson classification: a two-year nationwide cross-sectional study on rates, risk factors and perinatal outcomes of cesarean section.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Observational
- Evidence-Based Strategies to Minimize Unnecessary Primary Cesarean Sections: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Interventions targeting healthcare providers to optimise use of caesarean section: a qualitative comparative analysis to identify important intervention features.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Caesarean birth in public maternities in Argentina: a formative research study on the views of obstetricians, midwives and trainees.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Strategies to reduce the caesarean section rate in a private hospital and their impact.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Value-based care in obstetrics: comparison between vaginal birth and caesarean section.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Construction of a prediction model and a prevention control system for cesarean section rate based on the Robson classification system.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean rates increased in different parts of the world, rising from 20% to 33% in the USA and from 40% to 55% in Brazil between 1996 and 2011; however, there was no reduction in morbimortality rates. Several factors have been suggested as responsible for this increase, such as health judicialisation, fear of the painful process on the patients' part and reduction of medical training in vaginal delivery and labour complications. It is urgent to reverse this process and, therefore, a model of actions was created with the intention of engaging the team in order to reduce caesarean rates in a Brazilian hospital. METHODOLOGY: The model was based on the following actions: encouragement of labour analgesia; execution of written reports of any cardiotocographic examination; plan-do-study-act cycles for nursing orientations about the positions that favour pregnant women during labour; creation of a birth induction form; monthly feedback with physicians and nurses on caesarean rates achieved; verification of the caesarean rate by medical staff with individual feedback; daily round of medical coordination for case discussions; disclosure of caesarean rates on hospital posters; and constant dissemination of literature with strategies to reduce caesarean delivery. This plan of action started in January 2016. The mean caesarean section rate in the 31 months preceding the interventions (period A) was then compared with the 31 subsequent months (period B).
resultsBoth periods presented caesarean rates with normal distribution. The mean caesarean rate was 29.24% (range: 38.69%-23.89%, SD 3.24%) vs 25.84% (range: 17.96%-34.97%, SD 3.92%, p<0.05), respectively, for periods A and B.
conclusionAfter the implementation of the plan of action, there was a reduction in caesarean rates in this hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.