Pattern of Live Births in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, According to Robson Groups and the Kotelchuck Index Classification - 2015/2016

Abstract

Objective To investigate the patterns of hospital births in the state of Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil, between 2015 and 2016; considering the classification of obstetric characteristics proposed by Robson and the prenatal care index proposed by Kotelchuck.

Methods Data obtained from the Information System on Live Births of the Informatics Department of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SINASC/DATASUS, in the Portuguese acronym) databases were used to group pregnant women relatively to the Robson classification. A descriptive analysis was performed for each Robson group, considering the variables: maternal age, marital status, schooling, parity, Kotelchuck prenatal adequacy index and gestational age. A logistic model estimated odds ratios (ORs) for cesarean sections (C-sections), considering the aforementioned variables.

Results Out of the 456,089 live births in Rio de Janeiro state between 2015 and 2016, 391,961 records were retained, 60.3% of which were C-sections. Most pregnant women (58.6%) were classified in groups 5, 2 or 3. The percentage of C-sections in the Robson groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 was much higher than expected. Prenatal care proved to be inadequate for women who subsequently had a vaginal delivery, had an unfavorable family structure and a lower socioeconomic status (mothers without partners and with lower schooling), compared with those undergoing cesarean delivery. For a same Robson group, the chance of C-section increases when maternal age rises (OR = 3.33 for 41–45 years old), there is the presence of a partner (OR = 1.81) and prenatal care improves (OR = 3.19 for “adequate plus”).

Conclusion There are indications that in the state of RJ, from 2015 to 2016, many cesarean deliveries were performed due to nonclinical factors.

Resumo

Objetivo Investigar os padrões dos partos hospitalares no estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil, entre 2015 e 2016, considerando a classificação de características obstétricas de Robson e a dos cuidados pré-natais proposta por Kotelchuck.

Métodos Dados sistema de informações sobre nascidos vivos (SINASC) do departamento de informática do sistema único de saúde (DATASUS) foram utilizados para agrupar gestantes relativamente à classificação de Robson. Foi efetuada uma análise descritiva para cada grupo de Robson, considerando-se as variáveis idade materna, estado civil, escolaridade, paridade, o índice de Kotelchuck de adequação do pré-natal e a idade gestacional. Também foi realizado o cálculo de razão de chances (RC) para parto cesáreo, considerando-se um modelo logístico.

Resultados Dos 456.089 nascimentos vivos ocorridos no RJ de 2015 a 2016, foram incluídos 391.961 registros, sendo 60,3% cesáreas, com maioria de gestantes (58,6%) nos grupos 5, 2 ou 3. O percentual de cesáreas nos grupos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 e 8 foi bem superior ao sugerido pela literatura. Para gestantes de um mesmo grupo (controladas as demais características), a chance de cesárea se eleva quando aumenta a idade materna (RC = 3,33 para 41–45 anos), existe a presença de um companheiro (RC = 1,81), o nível de escolaridade é maior (RC = 3,11 para ≥ 12 anos) e o pré-natal é mais cuidadoso (RC = 3,19 para “adequado plus”).

Conclusão Há indícios que no RJ, de 2015 a 2016, muitos partos cesáreos foram realizados sob influência de fatores extraclínicos.

Keywords

vaginal birth - c-sections - kotelchuck index - robson classification

Palavras-chave

parto vaginal - cesárea - índice de kotelchuck - classificação de robson

Contributors

All of the authors participated in the concept and design of the study; analysis and interpretation of data; draft or revision of the manuscript; and they have approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the reported research.

• References

• 1 World Health Organization [Internet]. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: WHO; 2015. [cited 2019 Aug 20]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/161442
• 2 Souza ASR, Amorim MMR, Porto AMF. [Evidence-based cesarean section indications: part II: [review]]. Femina 2010; 38 (09) 459-468
• 3 Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 29-38 . Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65
• 4 Pádua KS, Osis MJD, Faúndes A, Barbosa AH, Moraes Filho OB. Factors associated with cesarean sections in Brazilian hospitals. Rev Saude Publica 2010; 44 (01) 70-79 . Doi: 10.1590/s0034-89102010000100008
• 5 Carniel EF, Zanolli ML, Morcillo AM. [Risk factors for the indication of caesarean section in Campinas (SP)]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2007; 29 (01) 34-40 . Doi: 10.1590/S0100-72032007000100006
• 6 Belachew J, Cnattingius S, Mulic-Lutvica A, Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Wikström AK. Risk of retained placenta in women previously delivered by caesarean section: a population-based cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121 (02) 224-229 . Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12444
• 7 Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, Domingues RMSM, Torres JA, Dias MAB, Moreira ME. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health 2016; 13 (Suppl. 03) 128 . Doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7
• 8 Alonso BD, Silva FMBD, Latorre MDRDO, Diniz CSG, Bick D. Caesarean birth rates in public and privately funded hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Rev Saude Publica 2017; 51: 101 . Doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2017051007054
• 9 Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2 (8452): 436-437 . Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3
• 10 Ministério da Saúde. DATASUS [Internet]. Informações de Saúde (TABNET). 2016 [cited 2019 Jul 20]. Available from: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/
• 11 Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM. ; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016; 123 (05) 667-670 . Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526
• 12 Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15 (01) 179-194 . Doi: 10.1053/beog.2000.0156
• 13 Almeida D, Cardoso AS, Rodrigues RM, Cunha A. [Analysis of cesarean section rates and indications using ten group classification]. Nascer Crescer 2014; 23 (03) 134-139 . Doi: 10.25753/BirthGrowthMJ.v23.i3.8701
• 14 Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral de Informações e Análises Epidemiológicas [Internet]. Consolidação do Sistema de Informações sobre Nascidos Vivos – 2011. Brasília (DF): Ministério da Saúde; 2013 [cited 2019 Apr 30]. Available from: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/sinasc/Consolida_Sinasc_2011.pdf
• 15 Kotelchuck M. An evaluation of the Kessner adequacy of prenatal care index and a proposed adequacy of prenatal care utilization index. Am J Public Health 1994; 84 (09) 1414-1420 . Doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.9.1414
• 16 Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27 (02) 297-308 . Doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004
• 17 Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2013
• 18 Bolognani CV, Reis LBSM, Dias A, Calderon IMP. Robson 10-groups classification system to access C-section in two public hospitals of the Federal District/Brazil. PLoS One 2018; 13 (02) e0192997 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192997
• 19 Minuzzi A, Rezende CL. [Influence factors in the choice of the childbirth way: a literature review]. Rev Uningá Rev. 2013; 14 (01) 11
• 20 Copelli FHS, Rocha L, Zampieri MFM, Gregório VRP, Custódio ZAO. Determinants of women's preference for cesarean section. Texto Contexto Enferm 2015; 24 (02) 336-343 . Doi: 10.1590/0104-07072015000430014