Objective To generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Health facilities from 43 countries. Population/Sample Thirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty-four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10 045 875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing. Methods We hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical-obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three-step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi-country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models. Main outcome measures Area under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate. Results According to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C-Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C-Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case-mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e-calculator to facilitate use of C-Model (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal-perinatal-health/c-model/en/). Conclusions This article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C-Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS. Tweetable abstract The C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems. © 2015 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.1233427436Shearer, E., Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs (1993) Soc Sci Med, 37, pp. 1223-1231Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Carroli, G., Fawole, B., 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 (2010) BMC Med, 8, pp. 1-10Betrán, A.P., Merialdi, M., Lauer, J.A., Bing-Shun, W., Thomas, J., Van Look, P., Rates of caesarean section: Analysis of global, regional and national estimates (2007) Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 21, pp. 98-113Zizza, A., Tinelli, A., Malvasi, A., Barbone, E., Stark, M., De Donno, A., Caesarean section in the world: A new ecological approach (2011) J Prev Med Hyg, 52, pp. 161-173Litorp, H., Kidanto, H., Nystrom, L., Darj, E., Essén, B., Increasing caesarean section rates among low-risk groups: A panel study classifying deliveries according to Robson at a university hospital in Tanzania (2013) BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 13, p. 107Appropriate technology for birth (1985) Lancet, 2, pp. 436-437. , World Health OrganizationAlthabe, F., Belizán, J., Caesarean section: The paradox (2006) Lancet, 368, pp. 1427-1473Angeja, A.C., Washington, A.E., Vargas, J.E., Gomez, R., Rojas, I., Caughey, A.B., Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: Which do they prefer and why? (2006) BJOG, 113, pp. 1253-1258Chaillet, N., Dumont, A., Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: A meta-analysis (2007) Birth, 34, pp. 53-64Colais, P., Fantini, M.P., Fusco, D., Carretta, E., Stivanello, E., Lenzi, J., Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson's ten group classification system and other socio-demographic and clinical variables (2012) BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 12, p. 54Cyr, R.M., Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: Commentary and historic perspective (2006) Am J Obstet Gynecol, 194, pp. 932-936Grünebaum, A., Chervenak, F., Skupski, D., Population-based standardization (PBS) of institutional cesarean delivery rates (2008) J Perinat Med, 36, pp. 110-114Gurol-Urganci, I., Bou-Antoun, S., Lim, C.P., Cromwell, D.A., Mahmood, T.A., Templeton, A., Impact of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2013) Hum Reprod, 28, pp. 1943-1952Robson, M., Hartigan, L., Murphy, M., Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate (2013) Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 27, pp. 297-308Ye, J., Betrán, A., Vela, M., Souza, J., Zhang, J., Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery (2014) Birth, 41, pp. 237-244Robson, M., Classification of caesarean sections (2001) Fetal Matern Med Rev, 12, pp. 23-39Robson, M., Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? (2001) Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 15, pp. 179-194Torloni, M.R., Betran, A.P., Souza, J.P., Widmer, M., Allen, T., Gulmezoglu, M., Classifications for cesarean section: A systematic review (2011) PLoS ONE, 6, p. e14566Hartmann, K., Andrews, J., Jerome, R., Lewis, R., Likis, F., McKoy, J., (2012) Strategies to Reduce Cesarean Birth in Low-risk Women. Agency Healthcare Res Qual (US), , Rep.No. 12(13)-EHC128-EFHiggins, T.L., Quantifying risk and benchmarking performance in the adult intensive care unit (2007) J Intensive Care Med, 22, pp. 141-156Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Vogel, J., Carroli, G., Lumbiganon, P., Qureshi, Z., Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): A cross-sectional study (2013) Lancet, 381, pp. 1747-1755Lawn, J.E., Blencowe, H., Pattinson, R., Cousens, S., Kumar, R., Ibiebele, I., Lancet's Stillbirths Series steering committee. Stillbirths: Where? When? Why? How to make the data count? (2011) Lancet, 377, pp. 1448-1463Bewick, V., Cheek, L., Ball, J., Statistics review 14: Logistic regression (2005) Crit Care, 9, pp. 112-118Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Rind, D., Grade guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence - Imprecision (2011) J Clin Epidemiol, 64, pp. 1283-1293Lauer, J.A., Betrán, A.P., Merialdi, M., Wojdyla, D., (2010) Determinants of Caesarean Section Rates in Developed Countries: Supply, Demand and Opportunities for Control, , Geneva: WHOMaso, G., Alberico, S., Monasta, L., Ronfani, L., Montico, M., Businelli, C., The application of the Ten Group classification system (TGCS) in caesarean delivery case mix adjustment. A multicenter prospective study (2013) PLoS ONE, 8, p. e62364