Open Access Research article

Developing criteria for Cesarean Section using the RAND appropriateness method

Rahim Ostovar1,2, Arash Rashidian1,3,7*, Abolghasem Pourreza1, Batool H Rashidi4, Sedigheh Hantooshzadeh4, Hassan E Ardebili 5, Mahmood Mahmoudi6 and The members of the panel of the Cesarean Section RAM Study

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2 Department of Public Health, Yasouj University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Knowledge Utilization Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

4 Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

5 Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

6 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

7 National Institute of Health Research, Italia Ave, Tehran, Iran

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2010, 10:52 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-10-52

Published: 14 September 2010

Abstract

Background

Cesarean section rates are increasing worldwide, and a rapid increase has been observed in Iran. Disagreement exists between clinicians about when to use cesarean section. We aimed to identify the appropriateness criteria for the use of cesarean section in Iran.

Method

A consensus development study using a modified version of the RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM). We generated scenarios from valid clinical guidelines and expert opinions. A panel of experts participated in consensus development: first round via mail (12 members), second round face-to-face (9 members). We followed the RAM recommendations for the development of the scenario lists, rating scales, and statistical analyses.

Results

294 scenarios relevant to cesarean section were identified. 191 scenarios were considered appropriate, of which 125 scenarios were agreed upon. The panel found cesarean inappropriate for 21% of scenarios, and 'equivocal' for 14% of scenarios.

Conclusion

RAM is useful for identifying stakeholder views in settings with limited resources. The participants' views on appropriateness of certain indications differed with available evidence. A large number of scenarios without agreement may partly explain why it has been difficult to curb the growth in cesarean section rate.