Decreasing Unnecessary Cesarean Section Rate in North West Iran: A Story from Achievements and Challenges

Author(s): Sevil Hakimi, Fariba Nikan*, Behzad Sarvaran Mahram, Khadijeh Pazani, Asiyeh Gasempour, Assef Khalili

Journal Name: Current Women`s Health Reviews

Volume 16 , Issue 1 , 2020

Become EABM
Become Reviewer

Graphical Abstract:


Background: Cesarean section trend has been rising steadily at an alarming rate worldwide, from 6.7 in 1990 to 19.1 in 2014.

Objective: The aim of this study was to reduce the high prevalence of Cesarean Section in Iran including North West of country.

Methods: This study was conducted, using special package provided by the ministry of health (MOH) to reduce unnecessary CS rate in the university-affiliated hospitals in East Azerbaijan province.

Results: The average annual growth rate of decreasing primary cesarean section (CS) varied from 2 to 9% in 2013-2017.

Conclusion: Holding training classes, continuous education for midwives and the establishment of a feedback system to obstetricians were found to be among the main factors bringing about the success in eliminating unnecessary CS in the present study. The program might prove to be even more successful through increasing cooperation between obstetricians and anesthesiologists.

Keywords: Cesarean section, normal vaginal delivery, obstetricians, anesthesiologists, mothers and neonates, midwives.

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016; 11(2)e0148343
[] [PMID: 26849801]
Bahadori F, Hakimi S, Heidarzade M. The trend of caesarean delivery in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J 2014; 19(Suppl. 3): S67-70.
[] [PMID: 24995763]
Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205(3): 262.e1-8.
[] [PMID: 22071057]
Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012; 29(1): 7-18.
[] [PMID: 21833896]
Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S. Listening to mothers II: Report of the second national U.S. survey of women’s childbearing experiences: Conducted January-February 2006 for childbirth connection by Harris Interactive® in partnership with Lamaze International. J Perinat Educ 2007; 16(4): 9-14.
[] [PMID: 18769512]
Monari F, Di Mario S, Facchinetti F, Basevi V. Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward cesarean section. Birth 2008; 35(2): 129-35.
[] [PMID: 18507584]
Artieta-Pinedo I, Paz-Pascual C, Grandes G, et al. The benefits of antenatal education for the childbirth process in Spain. Nurs Res 2010; 59(3): 194-202.
[] [PMID: 20421842]
Panda S, Begley C, Daly D. Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. PLoS One 2018; 13(7): e0200941.
[] [PMID: 30052666]
Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T, et al. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (3): CD009234
[PMID: 22419342]
Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (3): CD003766
[PMID: 17636733]

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

Year: 2020
Page: [23 - 25]
Pages: 3
DOI: 10.2174/1573404815666190823111132
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 15
PRC: 1