ArticleReproductive health2024
The effects of a quality improvement project to reduce caesarean sections in selected private hospitals in Brazil.
Article in Reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Primary cesarean section in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Robson Ten-Group Classification System.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices of Brazilian obstetricians in relation to childbirth care.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrazil is one of the countries with the highest rates of caesarean sections (CS), reaching almost 90% of births in the private sector. A quality improvement project called "Adequate Childbirth Project (PPA)" was conceived to reduce CS in the private sector. This project consisted of four primary components: "Governance", "Participation of Women", "Reorganization of Care" and "Monitoring". This paper aims to evaluate: (1) which specific activities of the PPA had the largest effect on the probability of a woman having a vaginal delivery; (2) which primary component of the PPA had the largest effect on the probability of vaginal delivery and (3) which scenarios combining the implementation of different activities planned in the PPA had a higher effect on the probability of vaginal delivery.
methodsA sample of 12 private hospitals participating in the PPA was evaluated. We used a Bayesian Network (BN) to capture both non-linearities and complex cause-effect relations. The BN integrated knowledge from experts and data from women to estimate 26 model parameters. The PPA was evaluated in 2473 women belonging to groups 1-4 of the Robson classification, who were divided into two groups: those participating or not participating in the PPA.
resultsThe probability of a woman having a vaginal delivery was 37.7% higher in women participating in the PPA. The most important component of the project that led to an increase in the probability of vaginal delivery was "Reorganization of Care", leading to a 73% probability of vaginal delivery among women in labor. The activity that had the greatest effect on the type of delivery was access to best practices during labor, with a 72% probability of vaginal delivery. Considering the 12 scenarios combining the different activities of the PPA, the best scenarios included: a non-scheduled delivery, access to information about best practices, access to at least 4 best practices during labor and respect of the birth plan, with an 80% probability of vaginal delivery in the best combinations.
conclusionPPA has been shown to be an effective quality improvement program, increasing the likelihood of vaginal delivery in private Brazilian hospitals.
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.