Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:58:24.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in Jamaica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Linda A. Webster ,
Janet R. Daling ,
Carmen McFarlane ,
Deanna Ashley  and
Charles W. Warren
Linda A. Webster
Affiliation:
Information Resources Management Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta
Janet R. Daling
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle
Carmen McFarlane
Affiliation:
McFarlane Consultants, Kingston, Jamaica
Deanna Ashley
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health, Kingston, Jamaica
Charles W. Warren
Affiliation:
Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The prevalence and determinants of primary caesarean section in Jamaica were estimated from a survey of women aged 14–49 years. Among 2328 women reporting 2395 live hospital births during the period January 1984 to May 1989, the prevalence of caesarean section was 4·1%. Repeat caesarean sections accounted for 1·3% of the hospital births during that period. Of the medical complications studied, prolonged labour and/or cephalopelvic disproportion carried the highest risks of primary caesarean section, followed by breech presentation, maternal diabetes, a high birth-weight baby, maternal hypertension, and a low birth-weight baby. The risk of primary caesarean section increased with maternal age, decreased with parity, was higher for urban than for rural residents, and was higher for births in private versus government hospitals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 515 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Harris, M. I., Hadden, W. C., Knowler, W. C. & Bennett, P. H. (1987) Prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance and plasma glucose levels in U.S. population aged 20–74 years. Diabetes, 36, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamaica Ministry of Health (1986) Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer, 1984. Ministry of Health, Kingston.Google Scholar
Janowitz, B., Covington, D., Higgins, J. E., Moreno, L. F., Nakamura, M. S., Nunez, J. A. & Letelier, M. M. (1983) Caesarean delivery in selected Latin American hospitals. In: Childbirth in Developing Countries, p. 43. Edited by Potts, M., Janowitz, B. & Fortung, J. A..MTP Press, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janowitz, B., Nakamura, M. S., Lins, F. E., Brown, M. L. & Clopton, D. (1982) Caesarean section in Brazil. Social Sci. Med. 16, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janowitz, B., Rodrigues, W., Covington, D. L., Arruda, J. M. & Morris, L. (1985) Caesarean delivery in northeast region of Brazil, 1979–1980. Am. J. publ. Hlth, 75, 560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, C. & Warren, C. (1989) 1989 Jamaica Contraceptive Prevalence Survey, Final Report. National Family Planning Board, Jamaica.Google Scholar
Nordberg, E. M. (1984) Incidence and estimated need of caesarean section, inguinal hernia repair, and operation for strangulated hernia in rural Africa. Br. med. J. 289, 92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notzon, F. C. (1990) International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. J. Am. med. Ass. 263, 3286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notzon, F. C., Placek, P. J. & Taffel, S. M. (1987) Comparison of national caesarean section rates. N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojo, V. A. & Okwerekwu, F. O. (1988) A critical analysis of the rates and indications for cesarean section in a developing country. Asia Oceania J. Obstet. Gynaec. 14, 185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paganini-Hill, A. & Ross, R. K. (1982) Reliability of recall of drug usage and other health-related information. Am. J. Epidemiol. 116, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, J. (1988) Urban hospital caesarean section delivery rates in Paraiba state, Brazil,1977–81. Am. J. publ. Hlth, 78, 704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesselman, J. J. (1982) Case-control Studies. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shah, B. V. (1981) SESUDAAN: Standard Errors Program for Computing of Standardized Rates from Sample Survey Data. Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Shah, B. V., Folsom, R. E., Harrell, F. E. & Dillard, C. N. (1987) RTILOGIT: Procedure for Logistic Regression on Survey Data. Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Statistical Institute of Jamaica (1988) Demographic Statistics, 1987. Kingston.Google Scholar
Taffel, S. M. (1989) Caesarean section in America: dramatic trends, 1970 to 1987. Statist Bull. Metropolitan Insurance Companies, 70, 2.Google ScholarPubMed
United Nations (1985) Demographic Yearbook, 1983.UN, New York.Google Scholar
VandenBroek, N., VanLerberghe, W. & Pangu, K. (1989) Caesarean sections for maternal indications in Kasongo (Zaire). Int. J. Gynec. Obstet. 28, 337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed