Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Disclosing possible nonmedically indicated cesarean sections in 5 high-volume urban maternity units in Tanzania: a criterion-based clinical audit

  • Sarah Hansen
  • , Monica Lauridsen Kujabi
  • , Rikke Damkjær Maimburg
  • , Anna Macha
  • , Luzango Maembe
  • , Idrissa Kabanda
  • , Manyanga Hudson
  • , Rukia Juma Msumi
  • , Mtingele Sangalala
  • , Natasha Housseine
  • , Brenda Sequeira D'mello
  • , Kidanto Hussein
  • , Thomas van den Akker
  • , Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch
  • , Nanna Maaløe
  • Aarhus University
  • University of Copenhagen
  • University College of Northern Denmark
  • Aga Khan University
  • Mwanyanamala Regional Referral Hospital
  • Sinza Regional Hospital
  • Temeke Regional Referral Hospital
  • Rangi Tatu Maternity Hospital
  • Amana Regional Referral Hospital
  • Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Globally, the cesarean section rate has increased dramatically with many cesarean sections being performed on questionable medical indications. Particularly in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the cesarean section rate is currently increasing rapidly. This potentially undermines the positive momentum of increased facility births and may be a central contributor to a growing "urban disadvantage" in maternal and perinatal health, which is seen in some settings. Objective: To assess to what extent cesarean section indications follow evidence-based, locally co-created audit criteria in five urban, high-volume maternity units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and identify reasons contributing to nonmedically indicated cesarean sections. Study Design: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted, from October 1st, 2021 to August 31st, 2022. A criterion-based audit with pre-defined, localized audit criteria was used to examine the clinical case-files of all women who gave birth by cesarean section during 3-month periods at the 5 maternity units. Primary outcomes were the cesarean section rate, indications for cesarean section, and proportion of nonmedically indicated cesarean sections. The PartoMa study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04685668). Results: Overall, the cesarean section rate was 31.5% (2949/9364), of which 2674/2949 (90.7%) cesarean sections had available data for analysis. Main indications were previous cesarean section (1133/2674; 42.4%), prolonged labor (746/2674; 27.9%), and fetal distress (554/2674; 20.7%). Overall, 1061/2674 (39.7%) did not comply with audit criteria at the time cesarean section was decided. Main reasons were one previous cesarean section with no trial of labor (526/1061; 49.6%); reported prolonged labor without actual slow progress (243/1061; 22.9%); and fetal distress with normal fetal heart rate at time of decision (211/1061; 19.9%). Conclusion: Two in 5 cesarean sections were categorized as nonmedically indicated at time of decision. Particularly, fear of poor outcomes and delay in accessing emergency surgery may cause resource-consuming "defensive decision-making" for cesarean section. Investments in conducive urban maternity units are crucial to ensure safe vaginal births and to reach a population-based approach that provides best possible timely care for all with the limited resources available.
Original languageEnglish
Article number100437
Number of pages12
JournalAJOG Global Reports
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2025
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • fetal distress
  • low-income countries
  • PartoMa
  • sub-Saharan Africa
  • sub-standard care
  • Tanzania
  • trial of labor
  • urban disadvantage

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Disclosing possible nonmedically indicated cesarean sections in 5 high-volume urban maternity units in Tanzania: a criterion-based clinical audit'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this