Search

ObjectivesCaesarean section (CS) conducted before labour (prelabour CS (PLCS)), compared with vaginal birth, may pose additional maternal and perinatal risks. No multicountry analysis has examined PLCS in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study assessed rates, risk factors and associations of PLCS with perinatal outcomes in LMICs.DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional surveys.SettingDemographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2015 and 2018 in 26 LMICs (13 countries in Africa, 11 in Asia and 2 in the Americas).ParticipantsWomen aged 15–49 years with singleton term births.Outcome measuresMain outcomes were early neonatal mortality, neonatal mortality, early breastfeeding (within 1 hour of birth), skin-to-skin contact and duration of hospital stay.Results255 227 women were included in the main analysis. Average rates of primary PLCS ranged from 1.3% in Zambia to 19.5% in Maldives. Median PLCS rate was 1.8% in the poorest versus 5.8% in the richest subgroups.Higher maternal age, education, economic status and BMI, lower parity, urban residence, delivery in private hospitals, larger baby size, having health insurance, more antenatal care (ANC) visits, ANC by a doctor and ANC in private hospitals were associated with increased primary PLCS.Across the 26 countries, primary PLCS, compared with vaginal delivery, was associated with increased neonatal mortality (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.5), decreased early breastfeeding (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) and skin-to-skin contact (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) and longer hospital stay (aOR 6.6, 95% CI 5.9 to 7.4). No significant association was found for early neonatal mortality (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5).ConclusionPrimary PLCS, compared with vaginal birth, is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton term pregnancies in LMICs. Caesarean births should be audited regularly to monitor trends, appropriateness and context-specific drivers of CS.

IntroductionFertility levels among adolescents remain high in many settings. The objective of this paper was to review the available literature about postpartum and lactational amenorrhoea among adolescents in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Global Health and CINAHL Plus databases using terms capturing adolescence and lactational or postpartum amenorrhoea. Inclusion criteria included publication date since 1990, data from LMICs, and topic related to lactational amenorrhoea as a postpartum family planning method or as an effect of (exclusive) breast feeding among adolescents. Thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were applied to summarise and interpret the findings.ResultsWe screened 982 titles and abstracts, reviewed 75 full-text articles and included nine. Eight studies assessed data from a single country (three from India, two from Bangladesh, two from Turkey, one from Nigeria). One study using Demographic and Health Survey data included 37 different LMICs. The five studies measuring duration of postpartum or lactational amenorrhoea reported a wide range of durations across the contexts examined. Four studies (from Bangladesh, Nigeria and Turkey) examined outcomes related to the use of lactational amenorrhoea as a family planning method among adolescents. We did not find any studies assessing adolescents’ knowledge of lactational amenorrhoea as a postpartum family planning method. Likewise, little is known about the effectiveness of lactational amenorrhoea method among adolescents using sufficiently large samples and follow-up time.ConclusionThe available evidence on lactational amenorrhoea among adolescents in LMICs is scarce. Given the potential contribution of lactational amenorrhoea to prevention of short interpregnancy intervals among adolescents and young women, there is a need for a better understanding of the duration of lactational amenorrhoea, and the knowledge and effective use of lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning among adolescents in a wider range of LMIC settings.