↓ Skip to main content

Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth
Published in
Reproductive Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcos Nakamura-Pereira, Maria do Carmo Leal, Ana Paula Esteves-Pereira, Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues, Jacqueline Alves Torres, Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias, Maria Elisabeth Moreira

Abstract

Cesarean section (CS) rates are increasing worldwide but there is some concern with this trend because of potential maternal and perinatal risks. The Robson classification is the standard method to monitor and compare CS rates. Our objective was to analyze CS rates in Brazil according to source of payment for childbirth (public or private) using the Robson classification. Data are from the 2011-2012 "Birth in Brazil" study, which used a national hospital-based sample of 23,940 women. We categorized all women into Robson groups and reported the relative size of each Robson group, the CS rate in each group and the absolute and relative contributions made by each to the overall CS rate. Differences were analyzed through chi-square and Z-test with a significance level of < 0.05. The overall CS rate in Brazil was 51.9 % (42.9 % in the public and 87.9 % in the private health sector). The Robson groups with the highest impact on Brazil's CS rate in both public and private sectors were group 2 (nulliparous, term, cephalic with induced or cesarean delivery before labor), group 5 (multiparous, term, cephalic presentation and previous cesarean section) and group 10 (cephalic preterm pregnancies), which accounted for more than 70 % of CS carried out in the country. High-risk women had significantly greater CS rates compared with low-risk women in almost all Robson groups in the public sector only. Public policies should be directed at reducing CS in nulliparous women, particularly by reducing the number of elective CS in these women, and encouraging vaginal birth after cesarean to reduce repeat CS in multiparous women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Postgraduate 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 51 22%
Unknown 57 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 14%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 68 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,387,502
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,114
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,551
of 315,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#30
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.