Thirty years of the World Health Organization’s target caesarean section rate. It’s time to take it seriously.

Australia, like much of the western world faces burgeoning numbers of women having caesarean sections along with increasing rates of postpartum haemorrhage, postnatal depression and other morbidities. There are many who argue for surgical birth, saying childbearing women are older, fatter and sicker and therefore require the life-saving operation. Others are critical of the increase. Then there are those who examine the literature and seek the truth of the matter.

Today's blog post is by Dr Kirsten Small, an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist who teaches in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. 

Kirsten has a research interest in examining the mismatch between the evidence base and what happens in clinical practice in maternity care.

In line with her research interest, Kirsten provides the following thought provoking lens on a recently published review of the World Health Organisation's target caesarean section rate. Read on, I think you'll find what she has to say fascinating.

The Medical Journal of Australia recently published a narrative review, titled “Thirty years of the World Health Organization’s target caesarean section rate: It’s time to move on.” (link: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/206/4/thirty-years-world-health-organization-s-target-caesarean-section-rate-time-move).

Authors Stephen Robson and Caroline DeCosta argue that the “ideal” caesarean section (CS) rate proposed by the World Health Organization in 1985 is “too low” (Robson & DeCosta, 2017, p 184).

By selective use of published literature, they generate a narrative to support this argument, and somewhat obtusely recommend that “in Australia, we should be aiming to provide CS to all women in need” (Robson & DeCosta, 2017, p 184). It is difficult to disagree with this point, but the high Australian CS rate would suggest that we are also providing CS to women who have no need for it, and who may not desire it.

The key points of their paper are presented in a summary as Figure 1 below. 

 Figure 1: Summary Robson & DeCosta, 2017, p 181

It is possible however, to use the published literature to create a different narrative, one that supports the contention that Australia’s CS rate is not appropriate.

An alternative summary of the evidence is:

• It has been two years since the WHO reaffirmed its longstanding position that the ideal CS rate is under 20% (Betran, et al., 2015).
• CS rates, particularly in wealthy industrialised countries continue to rise, with no evidence of associated improvement in perinatal outcome (Betran, et al., 2015)
• The strongest predictor of CS birth for the first infant is birth in a private hospital (Dahlen et al., 2012).
• Women whose first baby is born by CS find it difficult to access a care provider who will support them to achieve a vaginal birth in subsequent pregnancies (Toohill, Gamble, & Creedy, 2013).
• Outcomes that interest the patriarchal medical model typically exclude those that reflect women's experience of their care (Parry, 2008).
• Longer term outcomes for the neonate are better following vaginal birth rather than CS (Hyde, Mostyn, Modi, & Kemp, 2011).
• Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence are not strongly correlated with mode of birth (Bozkurt, Yumru, & Şahin, 2014). Surgical procedures for these conditions are increasingly safe and carry low risks of complications (Ogah, Cody, & Rogerson, 2011).
• Serious complications of CS such as placenta accreta, while rare, are of increasing concern to health care systems, given the large number of operations performed annually (Cheng, Pelecanos, & Sekar, 2016).
• We should aim to provide all women with evidence based care that achieves high rates of vaginal birth (Caughey, Cahill, Guise, & Rouse, 2014). All women should be involved in decision making regarding their birth options, to the extent that they wish to be.

Conclusion: There are ingrained systemic reasons why the medical model presents CS as the safe, easy option for women (Bryant, Porter, Tracy, & Sullivan, 2007). The evidence is clear – there is no population benefit for a CS rate of over 15%. Clinicians should focus on applying evidence to the care of individual women in order to achieve the best outcomes for them and for their infants.

References

Betran, A.P., Torloni, M.R., Zhang, J., Ye, J., Mikolajczyk, R., Deneux-Tharaux, C.,Gülmezoglu, A.M. (2015). What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reproductive Health, 12(1), 57–57. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

Bozkurt, M., Yumru, A. E., & Şahin, L. (2014). Pelvic floor dysfunction, and effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on pelvic floor. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 53(4), 452–458. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2014.08.001

Bryant, J., Porter, M., Tracy, S., & Sullivan, E. (2007). Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering. Social Science & Medicine, 65(6), 1192–1201.

Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J.-M., & Rouse, D. J. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(3), 179–193. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026

Cheng, H. C., Pelecanos, A., & Sekar, R. (2016). Review of peripartum hysterectomy rates at a tertiary Australian hospital. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 56(6), 614–618. http://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12519

Dahlen, H. G., Tracy, S., Tracy, M., Bisits, A., Brown, C., & Thornton, C. (2012). Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study. BMJ Open, 2(5), e001723–e001723. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001723

Hyde, M. J., Mostyn, A., Modi, N., & Kemp, P. R. (2011). The health implications of birth by Caesarean section. Biological Reviews, 87(1), 229–243. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00195.x

Ogah, J., Cody, D.J. & Rogerson, L. (2011). Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women: A short version Cochrane review. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 30, 284–291. doi:10.1002/nau.20980.

Parry, D. C. (2008). “We wanted a birth experience, not a medical experience”: exploring Canadian women's use of midwifery. Health Care for Women International, 29(8), 784–806. http://doi.org/10.1080/07399330802269451

Robson, J., & de Costa, M. (2017). Thirty years of the World Health Organization's target caesarean section rate: time to move on. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206(4), 181–185. http://doi.org/10.5694/mja16.00832

Toohill, J., Gamble, J., & Creedy, D. K. (2013). A critical review of vaginal birth rates after a primary Caesarean in Queensland hospitals. Australian Health Review, 37(5), 642–7. http://doi.org/10.1071/AH13044

Judging Right and Wrong?

Great changes are happening to midwifery and women's birth choices in Australia. The government has passed legislation that on the one hand gives more autonomy and a wider scope of practice to midwives working in the public health system and on the other hand, restricts the services able to be offered by midwives in private practice. More women will be able to have their babies at home as more public hospital homebirth services are being offered. However women will have less ability to choose their own midwife. In accessing publicly funded services, women will have to, in the main, take 'pot luck' with their midwives. Women who have 'criteria' also known as risk factors will be denied a choice of birth venue, even though many of the risk factors are poor predictors of outcomes. With good midwifery care, these women birth  well.

I have had an email from someone recently who is absolutely distraught because her local hospital staff are bullying her into having another caesarean. The maddening thing is that the woman has given birth normally both before and after the caesarean birth. The hospital where the woman lives has a 'once a caesarean always a caesarean' policy and does not take into account the individual and her circumstances . The woman is unable to pay a private midwife and any other options are non existent.

Just yesterday, a woman who was booked to have a homebirth with a publicly funded service, was explaining to some midwifery students how she found out that her allocated midwife was off when she went into labour. She rang the phone number and got a midwife on the other end who she felt was not the least bit interested in her. The woman told the students how uncomfortable she felt and how she had to ring someone in charge and get another midwife allocated to care for her. She was finally allocated two midwives she felt good with. Once that arrangement was settled, she was able to focus on her baby and her labour. She went on to have a her baby at home.

I've found the various perspectives on the current changes polarised and distressing for many people. I can understand the distress. Change is always challenging. Many people feel we are losing too much. I believe that we have to stay focused on what we want and how we want maternity services to be. Focusing on the problem only adds energy to the problem. Looking clearly at what is going on and then choosing our path and taking action is a much better way.

I truly want everything - I want women led maternity services.  I want women and their babies to be safe and given the care they want so that their physiology works well and their safety is optimised. I want publicly funded birthing services, including venue of choice to be freely available.  I want midwives in private practice able to work to the full scope of their practice. I want 'no fault' compensation for women and their families when babies have problems as they occasionally do regardless of birth venue.  I want women, midwives and doctors to work together and with other health care providers as needed for any particular woman's circumstances.  I believe we can achieve these changes.

Imagine my delight when I found this email newsletter in my inbox from a wonderful man, Charlie Badenhop, this evening talking about right and wrong. Charlie is a fourth degree black belt and certified instructor of Aikido in Japan, and a certified trainer in NLP and Ericksonian Hypnosis. He is also a long term practitioner of various forms of bodywork, Self-relations therapy, the Japanese healing arts of sei tai and seiki jutsu, and Yoga.

I have found Charlie well worth listening to as he always has something interesting and appropriate to say. As I read the newsletter, I thought how pertinent Charlie's writing is to our circumstances. I wrote to Charlie and asked if I could share the newsletter. He readily agreed and to my surprise, told me that at one stage he had thought about becoming a midwife but ended up in Japan instead.

Enjoy!  If you like what Charlie has to say, you can subscribe to his newsletters down the bottom of the blog post.

"Pure Heart, Simple Mind"(tm) is the Seishindo newsletter written and edited by Charlie Badenhop (c).

Punishment, and the concept of "right or wrong"

"A lot of the best learning I received as an Aikido student came when we were outside of the dojo with sensei. We could be having a cup of coffee, or occasionally having a drink, and at some point it would become clear sensei had a message to deliver.

Once we were sitting in a coffee shop waiting for a train in the countryside.
Seemingly out of nowhere, sensei said, "I think there are many people in the world who act in a confrontational manner, and thus I wish more people understood the Aikido principle of non-dissension."

"Instead of spending so much time and so many human lives quarreling over who is right and who is wrong, I think the world would be a better place if we spent more time exploring how both sides are both right and wrong."


Myself, and the other two students sat there and said very little, knowing sensei was just beginning to get warmed up.

"You see," sensei said, "In Aikido we learn to refrain from engaging in confrontation, but that does not mean we shy away from protecting ourselves. It always intrigues me when new students attend a class and ask, ‘How can Aikido really be a martial art if you don't attack or retaliate against your opponents.' By this time the three of you have heard my reply many times over. In Aikido we have no attack form because we have no desire or intention to harm our adversaries. Instead we strive to bring hostilities to a conclusion that is respectful of all involved."

"If my opponent has never harmed me, never struck me, never hurt me, then why would I want to hurt or punish him? Do I want to punish him simply because he has thought about hurting me, or because he has made a weak effort that was easily rebuffed? You see, even in a court of law, you can't charge someone with murder simply because they thought about murdering someone. Attempted murder and actual murder are two very different crimes. When I am relaxed, aware, and fully present in the moment, then my adversary will have little opportunity to successfully attack me. Since he hasn't hurt me, since he hasn't truly threatened me, I have little desire to punish him in any way. His own thoughts, and the negative results he achieves in the world will be punishment enough."

"Related to punishing someone, is the idea of someone or something being either right or wrong. In Aikido, we learn to refrain from believing one path, or one way of thinking, is inherently superior to another. We also learn to refrain from engaging in thinking that any one point of view is the opposite of others."

"When we think in terms of opposites and disagree with someone else's opinion, we begin to oppose the other person's point of view. And this is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to resisting, combat, antagonism, and an overall disrespect for our perceived adversary."

"In Aikido, we do not attack, but we also do not concede or give up. In every day life the same can be true. Without attacking the viewpoint of others, without conceding or giving up our own viewpoint, we can still maintain ourselves, and continue to act in a way that is consistent with our beliefs."

"Keep that in mind," sensei said as he looked across the table. "More than once I've heard you arguing with other students, trying to prove your viewpoint was more correct than theirs. When you act like that, not only will you fail to convince them that you are right, and they are wrong, you'll also wind up losing them as friends and allies."

"Pure Heart, Simple Mind"(tm) is the Seishindo newsletter written and edited by Charlie Badenhop (c). All rights reserved. Click if you would like to subscribe.