Background Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. Objectives To evaluate the e ectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. Selection criteria Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-a er studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section (Review)

BackgroundCaesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. 1 Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section (Review)

BackgroundCaesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. 1 Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section (Review)

Objective To determine whether restrictive or routine episiotomy in term pregnant Southeast Asian women results in fewer complications.Design A multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting Two tertiary and two general hospitals in Thailand.Population 3006 singleton pregnant women 18 years or older, ≥37 weeks of gestation, cephalic presentation and planned vaginal delivery.Methods This randomised controlled trial compared routine versus restrictive episiotomies in Thai women giving birth vaginally. Participants were singleton, term pregnant women with cephalic presentation. Block randomisation was stratified by study site and parity. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to indicate between-group differences.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was severe perineal laceration. Secondary outcomes included vaginal laceration, cervical laceration, and pregnancy outcomes.Results 3006 women were randomly assigned to restrictive (1502) and routine (1504) episiotomy. There was no difference in severe perineal laceration between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46-1.12). Restrictive episiotomy resulted in more intact perineums in multiparous women (RR 3.09, 95% CI 2.10-4.56). Restrictive episiotomy increased the risk of vaginal laceration in primiparous (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.62-2.37) and multiparous women (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.77-2.75) but did not lead to more suturing. There were comparable risks of cervical laceration, postpartum haemorrhage, wound complication, birth asphyxia, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit.Conclusions Restrictive episiotomy results in more intact perineum in multiparous women. Risks of maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two practices. These results strengthen the certainty of the existing Cochrane review findings in supporting restrictive episiotomy.Tweetable abstract Restrictive episiotomy results in more intact perineums after vaginal birth in multiparous Southeast Asian women.

The risk of cesarean delivery due to CPD may be forecasted by a simple scoring scheme using five predictors that correctly identified women with low, moderate and high risk. This scheme may be applicable to physicians and midwives for identifying high-risk pregnant women in order to take appropriate action.