MARATTO

preprint

Caesarean Section Rates in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital in Northern Uganda: A Retrospective Analysis Using the Robson Ten Group Classification System

2024Open accessGulu University

Abstract

<title>Abstract</title> Background The Robson Ten Groups Classification System (RTGCS) is increasingly being used for assessing, monitoring, and comparing caesarean section (CS) rates within and between healthcare facilities over time. We assessed the pattern of the CS rate at Gulu Regional Referral Hospital (GRRH) in Northern Uganda using the RTGCS. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of all deliveries performed during the financial year of 2019/2020 at GRRH, Gulu city, Uganda. We reviewed the files of mothers and collected data on sociodemographic and obstetric variables. The outcome variables were Robson Ten Groups (1–10) based on gestational age, fetal presentation, number of fetuses, onset of labor, fetal presentation and lie, and history of CS and indications for CS. Results We included 3,183 participants, with a mean age of 24.6± 5.7 years. The overall CS rate was 13.4% (n = 427). Most participants were in RTGCS groups 3 (43.3%, n = 185) and 1 (29.2%, n = 88). The most common indication for CS was prolonged labor (41.0%) (n = 175), followed by foetal distress (19.9%, n = 85) and Contracted pelvis (13.6%, n = 58). Conclusion Our study showed that GRRH patients had a low-risk obstetric population dominated by mothers in groups 3 and 1, which could explain the low overall CS rate of 13.4%. However, the rates of CS among low-risk populations are alarmingly high, and this is likely to cause an increase in CS rates in the future. We recommend group-specific interventions through CS auditing to lower group-specific CS rates.

Research topics

  • Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Maternal and fetal healthcare

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4313015/v1

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.