Women's preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Rates of caesarean section have steadily increased in most middle- and high-income countries over the last few decades without medical justification. Maternal request is one of the frequently cited non-medical factors contributing to this trend. The objectives of this study were to assess pregnant women's preferences regarding mode of delivery and to compare actual caesarean section rates in the public and private sectors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in two public and three private hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 382 nulliparous pregnant women (183 from the private sector and 199 from the public sector) aged 18 to 35 years, with single pregnancies over 32 weeks of gestational age were enrolled during antenatal care visits between October 2010 and September 2011. We excluded women with pregnancies resulting from assisted fertility, women with known pre-existing major diseases or, with pregnancy complications, or with a medical indication of elective cesarean section. We used two different approaches to assess women's preferences: a survey using a tailored questionnaire, and a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Only 8 and 6% of the healthy nulliparous women in the public and private sectors, respectively, expressed a preference for caesarean section. Fear of pain and safety were the most frequently expressed reasons for preferring caesarean section. When reasons for delivery mode were assessed by a discrete choice experiment, women placed the most emphasis on sex after childbirth. Of women who expressed their preference for vaginal delivery, 34 and 40% ended their pregnancies by caesarean section in public and private hospitals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The preference for caesarean section is low among healthy nulliparous women in Buenos Aires. The reasons why these women had a rate of more than 35% caesarean sections are unlikely related to their preferences for mode of delivery.

Community-based supplementary feeding for promoting the growth of children under five years of age in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Supplementary feeding is defined as the provision of extra food to children or families beyond the normal ration of their home diets. The impact of food supplementation on child growth merits careful evaluation in view of the reliance of many states and non-governmental organisations on this intervention to improve child health in low and middle income countries (LMIC). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of community-based supplementary feeding for promoting the physical growth of children under five years of age in LMIC. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review  we searched the following databases on 31 January 2011: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 3, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to week 3, 2011), CINAHL (1937 to 27 January 2011), LILACS (all years), WorldCat for dissertations and theses (all years) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating supplementary feeding in comparison to a control group (no intervention or a placebo such as food with a very low number of nutrients and calories) in children from birth to five years of age in LMIC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and analysed the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (n = 1243 children) that were at relatively high risk of bias. We found high levels of clinical heterogeneity in the participants, interventions and outcome measures across studies. Nevertheless, in order to quantify pooled effects of supplementary feeding, we decided to combine studies according to prespecified characteristics. These were the children's age (younger or older than 24 months), their nutritional status at baseline (stunted or wasted, or not stunted or wasted) and the duration of the intervention (less or more than 12 months). A statistically significant difference of effect was only found for length during the intervention in children aged less than 12 months (two studies; 795 children; mean difference 0.19 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.31). Based on the summary statistic calculated for each study, the mean difference (MD) between intervention and control groups ranged from 0.48 cm (95% CI 0.07 to 0.89) to 1.3 cm (95% CI 0.03 to 2.57) after 3 and 12 months of intervention, respectively. Data on potential adverse effects were lacking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The scarcity of available studies and their heterogeneity makes it difficult to reach any firm conclusions. The review findings suggest supplementary feeding has a negligible impact on child growth; however, the pooled results should be interpreted with great caution because the studies included in the review are clinically diverse. Future studies should address issues of research design, including sample size calculation, to detect meaningful clinical effects and adequate intervention allocation concealment. In the meantime, families and children in need should be provided appropriate feeding, health care and sanitation without waiting for new RCTs to establish a research basis for feeding children.