Task shifting cesarean sections in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Andrew Zakhari1, Rea Konci1, Dong Bach Nguyen1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital-Glen Site, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Background:
Safe and timely access to cesarean section (CS) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) remains a significant challenge.
Objectives:
To compare maternal and perinatal outcomes of CS by non-physician clinicians (NPCs) versus physicians in LMIC.
Search Strategy And Selection Criteria:
A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), Web of Science, and LILACS was performed from inception to January 2022.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and meta-analysis was performed when possible.
Main Results:
Ten studies from seven African countries were included. There was no significant difference in maternal mortality for CS performed by NPCs versus physicians (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-2.14, P = 0.8, I2 = 70%, P < 0.05, eight studies, n = 20 711) or in perinatal mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.61, P = 0.3, I2 = 88%, n = 19 716). Despite heterogeneous clinical settings between providers, there was no difference in the rates of wound infection or re-operation, although there was a higher rate of wound complications (such as dehiscence) in the NPC group (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.21-2.95, P = 0.005, n = 6507).
Conclusions:
NPCs have comparable maternal and neonatal outcomes for CS compared with standard providers, albeit with increased odds of wound complication.
Prospero Registration:
CRD42020217966.
