Gesundheitswesen 2016; 78(01): e1-e5
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1549937
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Caesarean Sections in Beijing, China – Results from a Descriptive Study

Unnötige Kaiserschnittentbindungen in Beijing, China – Die Ergebnisse einer deskriptiven Studie
Y. Hu
1   School of Medizin und Gesundheitsmanagement, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong Universität für Wissenschaft und Technologie, Wuhan, China
H. Tao
1   School of Medizin und Gesundheitsmanagement, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong Universität für Wissenschaft und Technologie, Wuhan, China
Z. Cheng
1   School of Medizin und Gesundheitsmanagement, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong Universität für Wissenschaft und Technologie, Wuhan, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 July 2015 (online)


Objective: Caesarean section rates are increasing dramatically in China. The predominant contributor to the increase in China was the unnecessary Caesarean section. The objective of this study was to estimate the excess economic burden caused by unnecessary Caesarean sections vs. vaginal delivery for Beijing and all China.

Methods: The 33 476 obstetric medical case files from randomly selected 17 hospitals of Beijing in 2011 were taken for our descriptive approach. Based on the individual medical files and on a definition of what necessary and unnecessary Caesarean sections are, we sampled also the data for costs and length of stay for comparisons with vaginal deliveries. The Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson chi-square test statistics were used to test for significant difference in the analysis.

Results: The Caesarean section rate was 58.5% among all deliveries and that rate of unnecessary Caesarean sections was 71.5% among all the Caesarean sections but 41.8% among all deliveries in Beijing. The hospitalisation expenses of unnecessary Caesarean sections were 472 US$ higher than that of a vaginal delivery on average. The total excess economic burden caused by unnecessary Caesarean sections can be estimated to 38.97 million US$ for Beijing and to 3.29 billion US$ all over China in 2011. This is equivalent to the annual health expenditure of over 139 575 residents in Beijing and of 11 783 120 residents in China, respectively.

Conclusion: Socio-economic factors are possible reasons for the increase of unnecessary Caesarean section in China and more analytical attention should be paid to that problem in order to propose fitting practical reactions.


Ziel: Die Kaiserschnitt-Rate steigt dramatisch in China. Der vorherrschende Faktor für die Zunahme waren unnötige Kaiserschnitte. Ziel dieser Studie war es, die wirtschaftliche Belastung durch unnötige Kaiserschnitte im Vergleich zu vaginalen Entbindung für Peking und ganz China zu schätzen.

Methodik: 33 476 geburtshilfliche medizinische Akten von 17 Krankenhäusern in Peking aus dem Jahr 2011 wurden ausgewertet, um die Situation von unnötigen Kaiserschnitten in Peking, China zu beschreiben und die wirtschaftliche Belastung, die sie im Vergleich zu vaginalen Entbindungen verursachten zu schätzen. Der Mann-Whitney U-Test und Pearson Chi-Quadrat-Test-Statistik wurden verwendet, um signifikanten Unterschied in der Analyse zu prüfen.

Ergebnisse: Schnittentbindungen waren 58,5% aller Entbindungen und unnötige Schnittentbindungen waren 71,5% damit, und 41,8% aller Entbindungen in Peking. Die Krankenhauskosten von unnötigen Kaiserschnitten waren im Durchschnitt 472 US$ höher als die der vaginalen Entbindung. Die Kosten der unnötigen Schnittentbindungen können auf 38,97 Million US$ für Beijing und 3,29 Billion US$ für das gesamte Land in 2011 geschätzt werden. Diese Summe entspricht den Gesamtausgaben für die Krankenversorgung von 139 575 Einwohnern in Beijing, bzw. etwa 11 783 120 Einwohnern in China.

Schlussfolgerung: Sozioökonomische Faktoren sind die möglichen Ursachen für diesen Sachverhalt und daher sollte größere analytische Aufmerksamkeit diesem Problem gewidmet werden, um geeignete praktische Schritte gegen die Verschwendung knapper Ressourcen durch unnötige medizinische Leistungen begründen zu können.

  • References

  • 1 Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol 2007; 28: 98-113
  • 2 World Health Organization . Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2: 436-437
  • 3 MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E et al. Cesarean Birth in the United States: Epidemiology. Trends, and Outcomes. ClinPerinatol 2008; 35: 293-307
  • 4 Leeman LM, Plante LA. Patient-Choice Vaginal Delivery?. Annals of family medicine 2006; 4: 265-268
  • 5 Bruce LF. Cesarean Section: A Worldwide Epidemic?. Birth 2000; 27: 2
  • 6 Katikireddi SV, Gorman DR, Leyland AH. A comparison of trends in caesarean section rates in former communist (transition) countries and other European countries. Eur J Public Health 2013; 23: 381-383
  • 7 Qin C, Zhou M, William M et al Clinical Indications and Determinants of the Rise of Cesarean Section in Three Hospitals in Rural China. Matern Child Health J 2012; 16: 1484-1490
  • 8 Tang S, Li X, Wu Z. Rising caesarean delivery rate in primiparous women in urban China: evidence from three nationwide household health surveys. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1527-1532
  • 9 Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010; 375: 490-499
  • 10 Zhang J, Liu Y, Meikle S et al Cesarean delivery on maternal request in southeast China. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 1077-1082
  • 11 Hong X. Factors related to the high cesarean section rate and their effects on the “Price transparency policy” in Beijing, China. Tohoku J Exp Med 2007; 212: 283-298
  • 12 Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Lumbiganon P et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med 2010; 8: 71
  • 13 Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World health report 2010; 30: 1-31
  • 14 Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367: 1819-1829
  • 15 Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral H et al. Maternal Outcomes Associated With Planned Primary Cesarean Births Compared With Planned Vaginal Births. ObstetGynecol 2007; 109: 669-677
  • 16 Petrou S, Henderson J, Glazener C. Economic aspects of caesarean section and alternative modes of delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 15: 145-163
  • 17 Henderson J, McCandlish R, Kumiega L et al. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 149-157
  • 18 Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Farrell SA et al. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 192-197
  • 19 Belizán JM, Althabe F, Barros FC et al. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999; 319: 1397-1400
  • 20 Gonzalez-Perez GJ, Vega-Lopez MG, Cabrera-Pivaral C et al. Caesarean sections in Mexico: are there too many?. Health policy plann 2001; 16: 62-67
  • 21 National Bureau of Statistics of China . China Statistical Yearbook 2012. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2012
  • 22 Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP et al. Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e14566
  • 23 Meng Q, Xu L, Zhang Y et al. Trends in access to health services and financial protection in China between 2003 and 2011: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 2012; 379: 805-814
  • 24 Klemetti R, Che X, Gao Y et al. Cesarean section delivery among primiparous women in rural China: an emerging epidemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 65.e1-65.e6
  • 25 Feng XL, XuL GuoY et al. Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. B World Health Organ 2012; 90: 30A-39A
  • 26 Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicenter prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1025
  • 27 Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A Review of Issues Surrounding Medically Elective Cesarean Delivery. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing 2007; 36: 605-615
  • 28 Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999; 354: 776
  • 29 Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous. Lancet 2006; 367: 1796-1797
  • 30 Lee LY, Holroyd E, Ng CY. Exploring factors influencing Chinese women’s decision to have elective caesarean surgery. Midwifery 2001; 17: 314-322
  • 31 Guo S, Padmadas SS, Zhao F et al. Delivery settings and caesarean section rates in China. B World Health Organ 2007; 85: 755-762
  • 32 Long Q, Klemetti R, Wang Y et al. High Caesarean section rate in rural China: is it related to health insurance (New Co-operative Medical Scheme)?. Soc Sci Med 2012; 75: 733-737
  • 33 Lee S, Khang Y, Lee M. Women’s attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea: a society with high caesarean section rates. Birth 2004; 31: 108-116
  • 34 Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M et al. Determinants of caesarean section rates in developed countries: supply, demand and opportunities for control. World Health Report (2010) Background Paper 2010; 29
  • 35 Cai WW, Marks JS, Chen C et al. Increased cesarean section rates and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China. Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 777-780
  • 36 Kazandjian VA, Chaulk CP, Ogunbo S et al. Does a Cesarean section delivery always cost more than a vaginal delivery?. J EvalClin Pract 2007; 13: 16-20
  • 37 Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 1934-1940
  • 38 Chong YS, Kwek KY. Safer childbirth: avoiding medical interventions for non-medical reasons. Lancet 2010; 375: 440-442
  • 39 Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007; 34: 53-64
  • 40 Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth 2002; 29: 28-39