Can the use of cesarean section be regulated? A review of methods and results

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 77, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 951-960

  Kristensen, Merete Østergård ^a   Hedegaard, Morten ^a   Secher, Niels Jørgen ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Operative delivery; Physician practice patterns

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0032437772     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/j.1600-0412.1998.771001.x     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Clarke SC, Taffel S. Changes in cesarean delivery in the United States, 1988 and 1993. Birth 1995; 22(2): 63-7.
2. Vintzileos AM, Nochimson DJ, Guzman ER, Knuppel RA, Lake M, Schifrin BS. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(1): 149-55.
3. Thacker SB, Stroup DF, Peterson HB. Efficacy and safety of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: an update. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86(4 Pt 1): 613-20.
4. O'Driscoll K, Foley M. Correlation of decrease in perinatal mortality and increase in cesarean section rates. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61(1): 1-5.
5. Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Pritchard JA. Cesarean section: an answer to the House of Home. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153(8): 838-44.
6. Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Pritchard JA. Cesarean section: the House of Home revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160(1): 78-9.
7. Lilford RJ, van Coeverden de Groot HA, Moore PJ, Bingham P. The relative risks of caesarean section (intrapartum and elective) and vaginal delivery: a detailed analysis to exclude the effects of medical disorders and other acute preexisting physiological disturbances. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(10): 883-92.
8. Nielsen TF, Hokegard KH. Postoperative cesarean section morbidity: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146(8): 911-15.
9. Petitti DB. Maternal mortality and morbidity in cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985; 28(4): 763-9.
10. Hemminki E. Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy - a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996; 10: 366-79.
11. Lomas J. Promoting clinical practice change: Using the art to promote the science in medicine. In: Andersen TF, Mooney G, eds. The challenges of medical practice variations. London. England: Macmillan Publishing Co Inc. 1990; 174-91.
12. NIH Consensus Development Task force statement on cesarean childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139(8): 902-9.
13. Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 134(12): 1348-52.
14. EAGO consensus developmental statement on cesarean childbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989; 32(1): 47-50.
15. Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Rogers WH, McCloskey L, Winslow CM, Brook RH. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA 1987; 258(19): 2708-13.
16. Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. JAMA 1984; 252(23): 3273-6.
17. Rosen MG. Premature concerns for cesarean sections? JAMA 1984; 252(23): 3295.
18. Philipson EH, Rosen MG. Trends in the frequency of cesarean births. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985; 28(4): 691-6.
19. Petitti DB. Recent trends in cesarean delivery rates in California. Birth 1985; 12(1): 25-8.
20. Shiono PH. Fielden JG, McNellis D, Rhoads GG, Pearse WH. Recent trends in cesarean birth and trial of labor rates in the United States. JAMA 1987; 257(4): 494-7.
21. Shiono PH, McNellis D, Rhoads GG. Reasons for the rising cesarean delivery rates: 1978 1984. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69(5): 696-700.
22. Placek PJ, Taffel SM. Recent patterns in cesarean delivery in the United States. Ohstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1988; 15(4): 607-27.
23. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick Pierre K, Vayda E, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989; 321(19): 1306-11.
24. Pierre KD, Vayda E, Lomas J, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ, Anderson GM. Obstetrical attitudes and practices before and after the Canadian Consensus Conference Statement on Cesarean Birth. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32(11): 1283-9.
25. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Recent trends in cesarean section rates in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 141(10): 1049-53.
26. Norman P, Kostovcik S, Lanning A. Elective repeat cesarean sections: how many could be vaginal births? Can Med Assoc J 1993; 149(4): 431-5.
27. Soliman SR, Burrows RF. Cesarean section: analysis of the experience before and after the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148(8): 1315-20.
28. Oleske DM, Glandon GL, Tancredi DJ, Nassirpour M, Noak JR. Information dissemination and the cesarean birth rate. The Illinois experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8(4): 708-18.
29. Dillon WP, Choate JW, Nusbaum ML, McCarthy MA, McCall M, Rosen MG. Obstetric care and cesarean birth rates: a program to monitor quality of care. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80(5): 731-7.
30. Bickell NA, Zdeb MS, Applegate MS, Roohan PJ, Sui AL. Effect of external peer review on cesarean delivery rates: a statewide program. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (5 Pt 1): 664-7.
31. Meier PR, Porreco RP. Trial of labor following cesarean section: a two-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144(6): 671-8.
32. Flamm BL, Lim OW, Jones C, Fallon D, Newman LA, Mantis JK. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: results of a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158(5): 1079-84.
33. Gilstrap LC, III. Hauth JC, Toussaint S. Cesarean section: changing incidence and indications. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63(2): 205-8.
34. Porreco RP. High cesarean section rate: a new perspective. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65(3): 307-11.
35. Iglesias S, Burn R, Saunders LD. Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital. Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145(11): 1459-64.
36. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Peterson HB, Martinez Schnell B, Thompson RJ. Reducing cesarean sections at a teaching hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163(3): 1081-7.
37. Tay SK, Tsakok FH, Ng CS. The use of intradepartmental audit to contain cesarcan section rate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1992; 39(2): 99-103.
38. Rust OA, Place JC, Melendez D, Leyro PA. Lowering the cesarean rate at a small USAF hospital. Mil Med 1993; 158(1): 22-6.
39. Pridjian G, Hibbard JU, Moawad AH. Cesarean: changing the trends. Obstet Gynecol 1991: 77(2): 195-200.
40. Socol ML, Garcia PM, Peaceman AM, Dooley SL. Reducing cesarean births at a primarily private university hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168 (6 Pt 1): 1748-54.
41. Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarcan-section rates. N Engl J Med 1988; 319(23): 1511-16.
42. Myers SA, Gleicher N. The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program: an update after 6 years. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37(10): 1219-22.
43. Kiwanuka AI, Moore WM. Influence of audit and feedback on use of caesarean section in a geographically-defined population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio 1993; 50(1): 59-64.
44. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174 (1 Pt 1): 199-205.
45. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265(17): 2202-7.
46. Porreco RP. Meeting the challenge of the rising cesarean birth rate. Ohstet Gynecol 1990; 75(1): 133-6.
47. Lagrew DC, Jr. Morgan MA. Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174(1 Pt 1): 184-91.
48. Jonas HS, Dooley SL. The search for a lower cesarean rate goes on. JAMA 1989; 262(11): 1512-13.
49. Stafford RS. Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. JAMA 1990; 263(5): 683-7.