IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0005830.html

Financial and regulatory interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: An updated scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Rana Islamiah Zahroh
  • Alya Hazfiarini
  • Martha Vazquez Corona
  • Thiago Melo Santos
  • Nicole Minckas
  • Newton Opiyo
  • Fahdi Dkhimi
  • Veloshnee Govender
  • Meghan A Bohren
  • Ana Pilar Betrán

Abstract

Caesarean section (CS) is a life-saving procedure and a critical component of comprehensive obstetric care, yet CS rates are rising globally beyond levels justified by clinical indications. Growing evidence suggests that health system supply-side factors, such as provider payment models that financially reward CS over vaginal birth and the absence or weak enforcement of clinical guidelines, are contributing to this trend. Despite increasing concern, evidence on the implementation and impact of financial and/or regulatory interventions to reduce unnecessary CS remains limited. This scoping review updates and expands a 2020 review by identifying new studies published between 1 January 2019 and 3 September 2024 and synthesising these together with studies included in the earlier review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and Ebsco MultiDisciplinary Databases, and identified sibling studies to provide additional contextual and implementation details. Across both review periods, we included 46 full-text papers, comprising 31 intervention studies and 15 sibling studies, representing 24 unique interventions. The number of studies has doubled since the 2020 review, with most interventions implemented in high-income countries where baseline CS rates exceeded 20% at the regional or national level. Nearly half of the interventions were financial and complex, integrating multiple context-specific components and primarily targeting hospitals or health workers. Complex regulatory interventions, combining policy mandates with accountability mechanisms, health worker training and guidance, incentives or penalties, women’s engagement, and system-level coordination, showed possible benefits for birth outcomes compared with simple financial or regulatory interventions. However, the certainty of evidence was low, and such approaches may be resource-intensive. Overall, few studies combined financial and regulatory strategies, and maternal and newborn health outcomes were often not assessed, particularly in complex financial interventions. Future research should prioritise context-sensitive, multifaceted interventions and ensure robust evaluation of both service use and health outcomes to avoid unintended harms.

Suggested Citation

  • Rana Islamiah Zahroh & Alya Hazfiarini & Martha Vazquez Corona & Thiago Melo Santos & Nicole Minckas & Newton Opiyo & Fahdi Dkhimi & Veloshnee Govender & Meghan A Bohren & Ana Pilar Betrán, 2026. "Financial and regulatory interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: An updated scoping review," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005830
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005830
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005830&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005830?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.