Thirty years of the World Health Organization’s target caesarean section rate: time to move on

Stephen J Robson and Caroline M de Costa
Med J Aust 2017; 206 (4): 181-185. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00832


  • It has been 30 years since the World Health Organization first recommended a “maximum” caesarean section (CS) rate of 15%.
  • There are demographic differences across the 194 WHO member countries; recent analyses suggest the optimal global CS rate is almost 20%.
  • Attempts to reduce CS rates in developed countries have not worked.
  • The strongest predictor of caesarean delivery for the first birth of “low risk” women appears to be maternal age; a factor that continues to increase.
  • Most women whose first baby is born by caesarean delivery will have all subsequent children by caesarean delivery.
  • Outcomes that informed the WHO recommendation primarily relate to maternal and perinatal mortality, which are easy to measure.
  • Longer term outcomes, such as pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, are closely related to mode of birth, and up to 20% of women will undergo surgery for these conditions. Pelvic floor surgery is typically undertaken for older women who are less fit for surgery.
  • Serious complications such as placenta accreta occur with repeat caesarean deliveries, but the odds only reach statistical significance at the third or subsequent caesarean delivery. However, in Australia, parity is falling, and only 20% of women will have more than two births.
  • We should aim to provide CS to women in need and to continue including women in the conversation about the benefits and disadvantages, both short and long term, of birth by caesarean delivery.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

  • Stephen J Robson1
  • Caroline M de Costa2

  • 1 Centenary Hospital for Women and Children, ANU Medical School, Canberra, ACT
  • 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, James Cook University School of Medicine, Cairns, QLD


Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. World Health Organization. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva: WHO Press, 2009.
  • 2. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report (2010): Background Paper 30. Geneva: WHO 2010.
  • 3. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates: WHO/RHR/15.02. Geneva: WHO, 2015.
  • 4. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2: 436-437.
  • 5. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98-113.
  • 6. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006; 33: 270-277.
  • 7. Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis. Lancet 2006; 368: 1516-1523.
  • 8. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007; 18: 485-486.
  • 9. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367: 1819-1829.
  • 10. Barros FC, Victora CG, Barros AJ, et al. The challenge of reducing neonatal mortality in middle income countries: findings from three Brazilian birth cohorts in 1982, 1993, and 2004. Lancet 2005; 365: 847-854.
  • 11. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999; 354: 776.
  • 12. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies 2013 — in brief (AIHW Cat. No. PER 72; Perinatal Statistics Series no. 31). Canberra: AIHW, 2015.
  • 13. Mola GD, Kuk J. Operative vaginal delivery at Port Moresby General Hospital from 1977 to 2010. P N G Med J 2011; 54: 174-184.
  • 14. World Bank. Reproductive health at a glance – Papua New Guinea. April 2011. (accessed Dec 2016).
  • 15. Mola G, Kirby B. Discrepancies between national maternal mortality data and international estimates: the experience of PNG. Reprod Health Matters 2013; 21: 191-202.
  • 16. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA 2015; 314: 2263-2270.
  • 17. D’Alton ME, Hehir MP. Cesarean delivery rates: revisiting a 3-decades-old dogma. JAMA 2015; 314: 2238-2240.
  • 18. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (15): CD005528.
  • 19. Baghurst P, Robson S, Antoniou G, et al. The association between increasing maternal age at first birth and decreased rates of spontaneous vaginal birth in South Australia from 1991 to 2009. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54: 237-243.
  • 20. Smith GCS, Cordeaux Y, White IR, et al. The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e144.
  • 21. Essex HN, Green J, Baston H, Pickett KE. Which women are at increased risk of caesarean section or an instrumental vaginal birth in the UK: an exploration within the Millennium Cohort Study. BJOG 2013; 120: 732-742.
  • 22. Klemetti R, Gissler M, Sainio S, Hemminki E. Associations of maternal age with maternity care use and birth outcome in primiparous women: a comparison of results in 1991 and 2008 in Finland. BJOG 2014; 121: 356-362.
  • 23. Harlow BL, Frigoletto FD, Cramer DW, et al. Epidemiologic predictors of cesarean section in multiparous patients at low risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 156-162.
  • 24. Klein MC, Liston R, Fraser WD, et al. Attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: how to they differ from their predecessors? Birth 2011; 38: 129-139.
  • 25. Unterscheider J, McMenamin M, Cullinane F. Rising rates of caesarean deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a concerning trend. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 157: 141-144.
  • 26. O’Leary CM, de Klerk N, Keogh J, et al. Trends in mode of delivery during 1984-2003: can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications? BJOG 2007; 114: 855-864.
  • 27. Robson SJ, Tan WS, Adeyemi A, Dear KB. Estimating the rate of caesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Birth 2009; 36: 208-212.
  • 28. Chen JS, Ford JB, Ampt A, et al. Characteristics in the first vaginal birth and their association with mode of delivery in the subsequent birth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013; 27: 109-117.
  • 29. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O’Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international caesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 308.e1-8.
  • 30. Homer CS, Johnston R, Foureur MJ. Birth after caesarean section: changes over a nine-year period in one Australian state. Midwifery 2011; 27: 165-169.
  • 31. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Todd AL, Morris JM. Reducing caesarean section rates – no easy task. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53: 310-313.
  • 32. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Ford JB, et al. Pathways to a rising caesarean section rate: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2012; 2: pii: e001725.
  • 33. Athukorala C, Rumbold AR, Willson KJ, Crowther CA. The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who are overweight or obese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10: 56.
  • 34. Dodd JM, Grivell RM, Nguyen AM, et al. Maternal and perinatal health outcomes by body mass index category. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51: 136-140.
  • 35. Wu JM, Matthew CA, Conover MM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1201-1206.
  • 36. Mothes AR, Mothes HK, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB. Systematic assessment of surgical complications of 438 cases of native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse adopting Clavien-Dindo classification. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 1297-1301.
  • 37. Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, et al. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2014; 25: 81-89.
  • 38. Glazener C, Elders A, MacArthur C, et al. Childbirth and prolapse: long-term associations with the symptoms and objective measurements of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 2013; 120: 161-168.
  • 39. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 2013; 120: 152-160.
  • 40. Leijonhufvud A, Lundholm C, Cnattingius S, et al. Risks of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery in relation to mode of childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204: 70.e1-7.
  • 41. MacArthur C, Glazener C, Lancashire R, et al. Exclusive caesarean delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study. BJOG 2011; 118: 1001-1007.
  • 42. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen T, Milsom I. The prevalence of urinary incontinence 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 2013; 120: 144-151.
  • 43. Hilton P. Vesico-vaginal fistulas in developing countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 82: 285-295.
  • 44. Wall LL. Obstetric vesicovaginal fistula as an international public-health problem. Lancet 2006; 368: 1201-1209.
  • 45. Scott P, Robson SJ. Incidence of neonatal brachial plexus palsy in Australia 1993 – 2013: a population-based study. Pediatr Dimensions 2016; Feb 8. doi: 10.15761/PD.1000103.
  • 46. Kamara M, Henderson JJ, Doherty DA, et al. This risk of placenta accreta following primary elective caesarean delivery: a case-control study. BJOG 2013; 120: 879-886.
  • 47. Usta IM, Hobeika EM, Musa AA, et al. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1045-1049.
  • 48. Nisenblat V, Barak S, Griness OB, et al. Maternal complications associated with multiple cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 21-26.
  • 49. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1226-1232.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.