A cut above: The rising Caesarean section rate in New Zealand

New Zealand Medical Journal

Volumn 111, Issue 1059, 1998, Pages 30-33

  Bulger, Terasa ^a   Howden Chapman, Philippa ^a,b   Stone, Peter ^b   Obs, Dip ^b  

^a Department of Public Health ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; NEW ZEALAND; PREGNANCY; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; PREGNANCY;

EID: 0032512471     PISSN: 00288446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Francome C, Savage W. Caesarean section in Britain and the United States 12% and 24%: is either the right rate? Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 1199-218.
2. Sakala C. Medically unnecessary Caesarean births: introduction to a symposium. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 1177-98.
3. Bignall J. Why are Caesarean births in the UK increasing. Lancet 1994; 344: 1694.
4. Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 495-504.
5. Pearson J, Gareth R. Technique of caesarean section. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. p1234-45.
6. Mutryn CS. Psychosocial impact of Cesarean section an the family: literature review. Soc Sei Med 1993, 37: 1271-81 .
7. Aickin DR. Maternal mortality in New Zealand. NZ Med J 1993; 106: 375-6.
8. Patel N, (editor). Maternal mortality - the way forward: some implications of the report on confidential inquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom 1985-87. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 1992.
9. Linton M, Borman B, Findlay J. Caesarean Section: a national study. NZ Med J 1988; 101: 534-5.
10. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
11. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985 ii: 436-7.
12. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Active management of labour:current knowledge and research issues. BMJ 1994; 309: 366-9.
13. Thornton JG. Active management of labour does not reduce the rate of Caesarean section. BMJ 1996; 312: 378.
14. O'Driscoll K, Meagher D. Active management of labour. London: Saunders; 1980.
15. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Active management of labour current knowledge and research. BMJ 1994; 309: 6-7.
16. Shearer EL. Cesarean section: medical benefits and costs. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 1223-31.
17. Peaceman AM, Sciarra JJ. Encouraging trials of labour for patients with previous Caesarean birth. Lancet 1996; 347: 278.
18. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second Cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 10: 689-95.
19. Mould TAJ, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S. Women's involvement with the decision preceding their Caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet & Gynaecol, 1996; 103: 1074-7.
20. Treffers PE, Pel M. The rising trend for Caesarean birth: Britain could learn from the Netherlands. BMJ 1993; 307: 1017-8.
21. Josefon D. US midwives have low Caesarean rate. BMJ 1995; 311: 1387.
22. Keeler EB, Brodie M. Economic incentives in the choice between vaginal delivery and cesarean section. Milbank Quarterly 1993; 71: 365-404.
23. Fisher J, Smith A, Astburg J. Private health insurance and a healthy personality: new risk factors for obstetric intervention? J Psychosom Gynaecol 1995; 16: 1-9.
24. Johnson NP, Lewis J, Ansell DA. Does ethnicity influence obstetric intervention? NZ Med J 1995; 108: 511-2.
25. Donnelly P. Doing birth: a study of Samoan woman in Wellington. PhD Thesis, Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, 1989.
26. Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. JAMA 1984; 252: 3273-6.
27. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, et al. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: delivery after previous Caesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265: 2202-7.
28. Lomas J, Anderson G, Enkin M, et al. The role of evidence in the consensus process: results from a Canadian consensus experience. JAMA 1988; 259: 3001-5.
29. Buekens P, Bontsen M, Kittel F, et al. Does awareness of rates of obstetric interventions change practice? BMJ 1993; 306: 623.
30. Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower Cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1511-6.
31. Rowley M, Hensley MJ, Brinsmeaad MW, Wlodarczyk JH. Continuity of care by a midwife team versus routine care during pregnancy and birth: a randomised trial. Med J Aust 1995; 163; 289-93 .
32. Rockenschaub A. Technology-free obstetrics at the Semmelweiss Clinic. Lancet 1990; 335: 977-8.
33. Stafford RS. Alternative strategies for controlling rising Cesarean section rates. JAMA 1990; 263: 683-7.
34. Johnson N, Ansell D. Variation in Caesarean and instrumental delivery rate in New Zealand hospitals. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 35: 6-11.