##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 156 No. 1 (2026)

Swiss caesarean section rates according to Robson’s Ten-Group Classification System: an observational study

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:4231
Published
31.01.2026

Summary

STUDY AIMS: Robson’s Ten-Group Classification System (TGCS) was proposed to describe caesarean section rates by ten patient-centred risk-specific groups. The aim of the study was to describe Swiss caesarean section rates according to this classification, further stratifying it according to region and type of structure where delivery took place.  We also aimed to compare our results to the standard caesarean section rates, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

METHODS: An observational study including all women delivering in health facilities in Switzerland in the period 2014–2021. A total of 695,733 deliveries were included. Core variables used for classification were semi-automatically generated using routine data provided by the Swiss Federal Statistics Office. Caesarean section rates were reported according to the TGCS. Data were also stratified according to each of the 26 Swiss cantons, as well as to the typology of hospital where delivery took place.

RESULTS: The major relative contributors to the overall caesarean section rate were Group 2 (nulliparous, above 37 weeks, with induction) and Group 5 (women with previous caesarean section, above 37 weeks with a singleton pregnancy), respectively accounting for 20.7% and 30.1% of all caesarean sections. We also showed that the Swiss population was similar to the population considered in the WHO recommendation. Nonetheless, the caesarean section rate among our population exceeded that suggested by the WHO recommendations, being respectively of 44.4% vs 39.9% and 86.0% vs 74.4% for Groups 2 and 5. Large variations were detected in the caesarean section rate when looking at the different cantons, ranging from 29.8% to 59.6% for Group 2 and between 58.0% and 100.0% for Group 5.

CONCLUSION: Routine data collection allowed us to describe caesarean section rates throughout Switzerland according to the TGCS. The Swiss caesarean section rate was higher than the caesarean section rate recommended by the WHO, even though the population characteristics were comparable. Substantial differences were found when stratifying caesarean section rates according to the canton, as well as to the type of structure where delivery took place.

References

  1. 1. McDermott KW, Liang L. Overview of Operating Room Procedures During Inpatient Stays in U.S. Hospitals, 2018. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006 [cited 2025 Mar 23]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574416/
  2. 2. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al.; WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010 Nov;8(1):71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-71
  3. 3. Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Løkkegaard E, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Smárason A, et al. Cesarean section trends in the Nordic Countries - a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 May;96(5):607–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13108
  4. 4. Antoine C, Young BK. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. J Perinat Med. 2020 Sep;49(1):5–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0305
  5. 5. Office fédéral de la statistique, Sections Services de santé, Santé de la population. Santé reproductive [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/sante/etat-sante/reproductive.html
  6. 6. Robson MS. The 10-Group Classification System-a new way of thinking. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;219(1):1–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.026
  7. 7. Triep K, Torbica N, Raio L, Surbek D, Endrich O. The Robson classification for caesarean section—A proposed method based on routinely collected health data. Ryckman KK, editor. PLOS ONE. 2020 Nov 30;15(11):e0242736.
  8. 8. Betran A, Torloni M, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu A, the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section, Aleem H, et al. Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Apr;123(5):667–70.
  9. 9. Gu J, Karmakar-Hore S, Hogan ME, Azzam HM, Barrett JF, Brown A, et al. Examining Cesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Modified Robson Classification. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Jun;42(6):757–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.09.009
  10. 10. World Health Organization. Robson classification: implementation manual [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 [cited 2023 Feb 22]. 51 p. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259512
  11. 11. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2013 May;381(9879):1747–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60686-8
  12. 12. Haydar DA, Vial PY, Baud D. Evolution du taux de césariennes dans une maternité universitaire suisse selon la classification de Robson. Rev MÉDICALE SUISSE; 2017. p. 5.
  13. 13. Erdin R, Schmid M, Pehlke-Milde J. Recensement des activités des sages-femmes indépendantes de Suisse.
  14. 14. Zeitlin J, Durox M, Macfarlane A, Alexander S, Heller G, Loghi M, et al.; Euro-Peristat Network. Using Robson’s Ten-Group Classification System for comparing caesarean section rates in Europe: an analysis of routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2021 Aug;128(9):1444–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16634
  15. 15. Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Stabilising the caesarean rate: which target population? BJOG. 2015 Apr;122(5):690–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13199
  16. 16. Quibel T, Rozenberg P, Bouyer C, Bouyer J. Variation between hospital caesarean delivery rates when Robson’s classification is considered: An observational study from a French perinatal network. Shamshirsaz AA, editor. PLOS ONE. 2021 Aug 20;16(8):e0251141.
  17. 17. Colais P, Fantini MP, Fusco D, Carretta E, Stivanello E, Lenzi J, et al. Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson’s ten group classification system and other socio-demographic and clinical variables. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Jun;12(1):54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-12-54
  18. 18. Muraca GM, Joseph KS, Razaz N, Ladfors LV, Lisonkova S, Stephansson O. Crude and adjusted comparisons of cesarean delivery rates using the Robson classification: A population-based cohort study in Canada and Sweden, 2004 to 2016. PLoS Med. 2022 Aug;19(8):e1004077. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004077
  19. 19. Robson MS. Known knowns, unknown unknowns and everything in-between - the Ten Group Classification System (TGCS). BJOG. 2021 Aug;128(9):1454–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16679