Estimating the effect of cesarean section rate on health outcome: Evidence from Swedish hospital data

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 123-135

  Eckerlund, Ingemar ^a   Gerdtham, Ulf G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Economic consequences; Health outcome; Regression analysis

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; FETUS HYPOXIA; HEALTH CARE COST; MEDICAL RECORD; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERINATAL MORTALITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SWEDEN; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ASPHYXIA NEONATORUM; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; INFANT MORTALITY; INFANT, NEWBORN; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; REGISTRIES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SWEDEN;

EID: 0032931410     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462399152127     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Breusch, T., & Pagan, A. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 1979, 47, 1287-94.
2. Broadhead, T. J., & James, D. K. Worldwide utilization of cesarean section. In B. L. Flamm & E. J. Quilligan (eds.), Cesarean section: Guidelines for appropriate utilization. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995.
3. Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
4. Clark, L., Mugford, M., & Paterson, C. How does the mode of delivery affect the cost of maternity care? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1991, 98, 519-23.
5. Eckerlund, I., & Gerdtham, U.-G. Econometric analysis of variation in cesarean section rates: A cross-sectional study of 59 obstetrical departments in Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1998, 14, 774-87.
6. Evans, R. G. The dog in the night: Medical practice variations and health policy. In T. F. Andersen & G. Mooney (eds.), The challenges of medical practice variations. London: Macmillan, 1990.
7. Flamm, B. L., & Quilligan, E. J. (eds). Cesarean section: Guidelines for appropriate utilization. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995.
8. Gardner, L. B. Economic considerations in cesarean section use. In B. L. Flamm & E. J. Quilligan (eds.), Cesarean section: Guidelines for appropriate utilization. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995.
9. Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. A Test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 1987, 55, 163-72.
10. Joffe, M., Chapple, J., Paterson, C., & Beard, R. W. What is the optimal cesarean section rate? An outcome based study of existing variation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1994, 48, 406-11.
11. Johansson, P.-O. Evaluating health risks: An economic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
12. Kennedy, P. A guide to econometrics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
13. Kmenta, J. Elements of econometrics. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1990.
14. Medical birth registration. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare, 1988-92.
15. Nielsen, T. F., Otterblad Olausson, P., & Ingemarsson, I. The cesarean section rate in Sweden: The end of the rise. Birth, 1994, 21, 1.
16. O'Driscoll, K., & Foley, M. Correlation of decrease in perinatal mortality and increase in CS rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1983, 61, 1-5.
17. Phelps, C. E., & Parente, S. T. Priority setting for medical technology and medical practice assessment. Medical Care, 1990, 28, 703-23.
18. Rydhström, H., Ingemarsson, I., & Ohrlander, S. Lack of correlation between a high CS rate and improved prognosis for low-birthweight twins (<2500 g). British Journal of Obstretrics and Gynaecology, 1992, 97, 229-33.
19. Zellner, A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1962, 57, 348-68.