Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(S 01): e84-e91
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705176
Original Article

Trends in Cesarean Delivery Rate after Cessation of the One-Child Policy in China

Xiaohua Liu   *
1   Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
,
Ding Huang   *
2   Department of Obstetrics, International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University Medical School, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
,
Mark B. Landon
3   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio
,
Weiwei Cheng
2   Department of Obstetrics, International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University Medical School, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
,
Yan Chen
2   Department of Obstetrics, International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University Medical School, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
3   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning Regular Project 201740043.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective We aimed to describe changes in cesarean delivery (CD) rates after the change of the one-child policy in China by using the Robson classification in a large Chinese population.

Study Design This retrospective cohort study included 91,015 women who delivered at ≥24 weeks of gestation at a large tertiary obstetric center in Shanghai, China from 2011 to 2016. We analyzed CD rate trend and CD contribution trend in each Robson group. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of CD while adjusting for confounding variables.

Results The overall CD rate decreased from 49.0% in 2011 to 40.6% in 2016. In nulliparous women with singleton cephalic term pregnancy and planned CD, the CD contribution rate was reduced significantly from 29.3% in 2011 to 16.4% in 2016 (p < 0.001). In multiparous with a scarred uterus, the CD contribution rate began to increase from 3.8% in 2011 to 9.1% in 2016 (p < 0.001). Compared with delivery in 2011, delivery in 2016 was associated with a 37% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60–0.66) reduction in CD. This reduction was observed in both nulliparous women with singleton cephalic term pregnancy (aOR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.54–0.60), and multiparous women with singleton cephalic term pregnancy without scar (aOR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.30–0.55).

Conclusion The rate of cesarean delivery in our Chinese population has declined significantly in the past few years.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - Robson classification - china - one-child policy

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the ethics review board of IPMCHH, Shanghai Jiaotong University (ref. no.: 20160219).


* These authors contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Received: 28 November 2019

Accepted: 28 January 2020

Article published online:
20 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM. et al; World Health Organization Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010; 375 (9713): 490-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Liu X, Landon MB, Cheng W, Chen Y. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in China: what are the risks and benefits?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (06) 817.e1-817.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zhang J, Liu Y, Meikle S, Zheng J, Sun W, Li Z. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in southeast China. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (05) 1077-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Feng XL, Xu L, Guo Y, Ronsmans C. Factors influencing rising cesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ 2012; 90 (01) 30-39 , 39A
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China's 50% cesarean delivery rate: is it too high?. BJOG 2015; 122 (02) 160-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fitzpatrick KE, Sellers S, Spark P, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Knight M. The management and outcomes of placenta accreta, increta, and percreta in the UK: a population-based descriptive study. BJOG 2014; 121 (01) 62-70 , discussion 70–71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (06) 1226-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Barbadoro P, Chiatti C, D'Errico MM, Di Stanislao F, Prospero E. Cesarean delivery in South Italy: women without choice. A cross sectional survey. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (09) e43906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Einarsdóttir K, Kemp A, Haggar FA. et al. Increase in cesarean deliveries after the Australian Private Health Insurance Incentive policy reforms. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (07) e41436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rebelo F, da Rocha CM, Cortes TR, Dutra CL, Kac G. High cesarean prevalence in a national population-based study in Brazil: the role of private practice. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89 (07) 903-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liu X, Lynch CD, Cheng WW, Landon MB. Lowering the high rate of cesarean delivery in China: an experience from Shanghai. BJOG 2016; 123 (10) 1620-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zeng Y, Hesketh T. The effects of China's universal two-child policy. Lancet 2016; 388 (10054): 1930-1938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wang E, Hesketh T. Exploring women's decisions about childbearing after the lifting of the one-child policy. Cult Health Sex 2018; 20 (11) 1230-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mu Y, Li X, Zhu J. et al. Prior cesarean section and likelihood of vaginal birth, 2012-2016, China. Bull World Health Organ 2018; 96 (08) 548-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Robson MS. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001; 12: 23-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Qian J. China's National cesarean rate: analysis and suggestions. J Popul Dev 2012; 5: 39-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Evers EC, McDermott KC, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. Mode of delivery and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (11) 2569-2574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. Survey of obstetric care and cesarean delivery rates in Shanghai, China. Birth 2016; 43 (03) 193-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N. et al; WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network. Use of the Robson classification to assess cesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health 2015; 3 (05) e260-e270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tan JK, Tan EL, Kanagalingan D, Tan LK. Rational dissection of a high institutional cesarean section rate: an analysis using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41 (04) 534-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tapia V, Betran AP, Gonzales GF. Cesarean section in Peru: analysis of trends using the Robson classification system. PLoS ONE 2016; 11 (02) e0148138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns and outcomes of induction of labour in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Neonatal Health. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (06) e65612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate cesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27 (02) 297-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Laughon SK. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Washington DC American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (2 Pt 1): 450-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (25) 2581-2589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Liang J, Mu Y, Li X. et al. Relaxation of the one-child policy and trends in cesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births. BMJ 2018; 360: k817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sufang G, Padmadas SS, Fengmin Z, Brown JJ, Stones RW. Delivery settings and cesarean section rates in China. Bull World Health Organ 2007; 85 (10) 755-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B. et al; International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010; 33 (03) 676-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar