OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the gender of the delivering physician and the odds of performing cesarean delivery. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from the first year of records through May 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that reported odds ratios (OR), or data allowing the calculation of ORs, for cesarean delivery performed by female and male delivering physicians. We also included studies that reported the preference of physicians for performing cesarean deliveries. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Independent data extraction was carried out by at least two researchers. Standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis was used to generate overall ORs. Finally, in two separate meta-analyses, we analyzed 15 studies containing clinical data for 1,269,625 births, and 11 studies containing data for the preference for delivery mode of 4,911 obstetricians. Both the crude and adjusted odds of a cesarean delivery were lower for those performed by female physicians (crude OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68–0.84, τ2=0.029, adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65–0.85, τ2=0.031). We also found that female physicians had a lower preference for cesarean delivery in both crude and adjusted analysis (crude OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36–0.96, I2=77%, adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.84, I2=67%). CONCLUSION: Female physicians are less likely to perform cesarean delivery and less likely to prefer it. This was observed across different health systems and populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020158442.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.SettingOver 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.ParticipantsWomen at birth. Over 18.5 million births.InterventionCaesarean section.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.ResultsIn adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.ConclusionsWith smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020158437.