Study of the variations of the cesarean sections rate in the Rhone- Alpes region (France): Effect of women and maternity service characteristics

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 11-17

  Rabilloud, Muriel ^a   Ecochard, Rene ^a   Guilhot, Joelle ^b   Toselli, Anne ^b   Claude Mabriez, Jean ^b   Matillon, Yves ^a  

^a HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^b Dir Regionale Serv Med l'A   (France)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Herarchical model; Maternity service; Medical practice variations

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; FETUS DISTRESS; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL CARE; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OBSTETRIC CARE; OBSTETRIC OPERATION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREMATURITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMICS; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 0031966471     PISSN: 03012115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-2115(97)00277-7     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Baskett T.F., McMillen R.M. Cesarean section: trends and morbidity. Can Med Assoc J. 125:1981;173-176.
2. Notzon F.C. International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. J Am Med Assoc. 263:1990;3286-3291.
3. Bottoms S.F., Rosen M.G., Sokol R.J. The increase in the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med. 302:1980;559-563.
4. Raffel S.M., Placek P.J., Liss T.L. Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. Am J Public Health. 77:1987;955-959.
5. Taffel S., Placek P.J., Moien M.S. 1988 US cesarean-section rate at 24.7 per 100 births-a plateau? N Engl J Med (letter). 323:1990;199.
6. Goyert G.L., Bottoms S.F., Treadwell M.C., Nehra P.C. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med. 320:1989;706-709.
7. DeMott R.K., Sandmire H.F. The Green Bay cesarean section study. I. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 162:1990;1593-1602.
8. DeMott R.K., Sandmire H.F. The Green Bay cesarean section study. II. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates for failed labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 166:1992;1799-1810.
9. Burns L.R., Geller S.E., Wholey D.R. The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision. Med Care. 33:1995;365-382.
10. Haynes de Regt R., Minkoff H.L., Feldman J., Schwarz R.H. Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med. 315:1986;619-624.
11. Guillemette J., Fraser W.D. Differences between obstetricians in cesarean section rates and the management of labor. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 99:1992;105-108.
12. Gould J.B., Davey B., Stafford R.S. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 321:1989;233-239.
13. Pontonnier A., Berland M., Daudet M.et al. L'extension des indications de la césarienne au cours des dix dernières années est-elle justifiée? Rev Franç Gynéc. 74:1979;81-86.
14. Barrat J., Marpeau L., Maghioracos P., Larue L., Percque M. Evolution du pourcentage des césariennes. Bull Acad Natle Méd. 174:1990;969-984.
15. Baille M.F., Grandjean H., Arnaud C.et al. Evolution des taux de césarienne au CHU de Toulouse, de 1983 à 1993. Déterminants et conséquences. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 24:1995;763-771.
16. Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie (CNAM). L'obstétrique en France: enquête 1991. Rapport National, 1993.
17. Branger B., Chaperon J., Mouzard A., Picherot G., Kerbaol M. Le transfert hospitalier des nouveau-nés dans le département de Loire-Atlantique (France). Rev Epidemiol Santé Publ. 42:1994;307-314.
18. Direction du Service Médical de l'Assurance Maladie (DSMAM). Etude du fonctionnement des maternités privées et publiques de la région Rhône-Alpes. Rapport Médical Régional, 1993.
19. Minkoff H.L., Schwartz R.H. The rising cesarean section rate: can it safely be reversed? Obstet Gynecol. 56:1980;135-143.
20. Petitti D.B., Cefalo R.C., Shapiro S., Whalley P. In-hospital maternal mortality in the United States: time trends in relation to methods of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 59:1982;6-12.
21. Collea J.V., Chein C., Quilligan E.J. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 137:1980;235-242.
22. Huchcroft S.A., Wearing M.P., Buck C.W. Late results of cesarean and vaginal delivery in cases of breech presentation. Can Med Assoc J. 125:1981;726-730.
23. Flamm B.L., Lim O.W., Jones C., Fallon D., Newman L.A., Mantis J.K. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Results of a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 150:1988;1079-1084.
24. Martin J.N., Morrison J.C., Wiser W.L. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: the demise of routine repeat abdominal delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 15:1988;719-736.
25. Myers S.A., Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med. 319:1988;1511-1516.
26. Socol M.L., Garcia P.M., Peaceman A.M., Dooley S.L. Reducing cesarean births at a primarily private university hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 168:1993;1748-1758.
27. Anderson G.M., Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med. 311:1984;887-892.
28. Rasbash J, Woodhouse G. Mln command reference, Multilevel Models Project. Institute of Education: University of London, 1995:80-85.
29. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research-Volume 1-The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:142.
30. Tussing A.D., Wojtowycz M.A. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects. Med Care. 30:1992;529-540.
31. Dommergues M., Madelenat P. Césarienne. Technique, indications, complications. Rev Prat. 35:1985;1343-1362.
32. Boisselier P.H., Maghioracos P., Marpeau L., Hajali B., Barrat J. Evolution dans les indications des césariennes de 1977 à 1983: à propos de 18 605 accouchements. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 16:1987;251-260.
33. Macara L.M., Murphy K.W. The contribution of dystocia to the cesarean section rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 171:1994;71-77.