LetterCorrespondence

Re: Promotion of Family-Centered Birth With Gentle Cesarean Delivery

Ronald E. Pust
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2015, 28 (1) 160-161; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2015.01.140269

Because we promote “gentle” cesarean delivery,1 I trust it is in the larger context2,3 of avoiding cesarean delivery,4,5 whenever feasible, by “active conservative” management of labor (eg, partographs and decision making that considers alternatives to cesarean delivery). Through the American Academy of Family Physicians Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics6 course, family doctors are already leaders in this effort in the United States and abroad.7 This is likely already being done at Brown and other places where this advance in mother/child-centered birthing is working so well. If Magee et al1 could include the proportion of deliveries by cesarean delivery within their cohorts, this would frame that context.

Notes

  • The above letter was referred to the author of the article in question, who offers the following reply.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Magee SR,
    2. Battle C,
    3. Morton J,
    4. Nothnagle M
    . Promotion of family-centered birth with gentle cesarean delivery. J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:690–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Torloni MR,
    2. Betran AP,
    3. Souza JP,
    4. et al
    . Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e14566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Brennan DJ,
    2. Robson MS,
    3. Murphy M,
    4. O'Herlihy C
    . Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:308.e1–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Allen VM,
    2. O'Connell CM,
    3. Baskett TF
    . Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108(3 Pt 1):549–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ecker JL,
    2. Frigoletto
    . Cesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med 2007;356:885–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Dresang LT,
    2. Rodney WM,
    3. Leeman L,
    4. Dees J,
    5. Koch P,
    6. Palencia M
    . Advanced life support in obstetrics in Ecuador: teaching the teachers. J Am Board Fam Pract 2004;17:276–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lumbiganon P,
    2. Laopaiboon M,
    3. Gülmezoglu AM,
    4. et al
    ; World Health Organization Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet 2010;375:490–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section