Caesarean section among referred and self-referred birthing women: a cohort study from a tertiary hospital, northeastern Tanzania
2011

Caesarean section rates among referred and self-referred women in Tanzania

Sample size: 20662 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Sørbye Ingvil K, Vangen Siri, Oneko Olola, Sundby Johanne, Bergsjø Per

Primary Institution: National Resource Centre for Women's Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oslo University Hospital HF, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway

Hypothesis

What are the differences in Caesarean section rates and outcomes between formally referred and self-referred birthing women?

Conclusion

Formally referred women had higher Caesarean section rates and poorer neonatal outcomes, indicating the referral system identifies high-risk births but is underutilized.

Supporting Evidence

  • 55% of formally referred women had a C-section compared to 27% of self-referred women.
  • Low Apgar scores were significantly associated with formal referral.
  • Neonatal death rates were higher in formally referred women but not statistically significant after adjustments.

Takeaway

The study looked at women giving birth in Tanzania and found that those who were referred to the hospital had more C-sections and worse outcomes for their babies than those who went directly to the hospital.

Methodology

Data from 21,011 deliveries were analyzed using the Ten-Group Classification System and multiple regression models to assess outcomes based on referral status.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to the cost-sharing policy and the demographic profile of women accessing the tertiary facility.

Limitations

The study relied on registry data, which may have quality issues, and did not include community referral processes or data on women who did not reach care.

Participant Demographics

The study included 20,662 women, with 19% formally referred; demographics showed higher rates of teenage mothers and lower education among referred women.

Statistical Information

P-Value

<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI 1.09-1.86

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2393-11-55

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication