Decision-case mix model for analyzing variation in cesarean rates

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 170-179

  Eldenburg, Leslie ^a   Waller, William S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Case mix; Cesarean section rates; Decision models

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ARIZONA; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; RISK ADJUSTMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 0035019378     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100302     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Center for Disease Control. Rates of Cesarean Delivery: United States, 1991. MMWR. 1993;42:285.
2. Shearer EL. Cesarean section: medical benefits and costs. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37:1223-31.
3. Public Health Service. Healthy People 2,000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Public Health Service, 1991.
4. Minor AF. The Cost of Maternity Care and Childbirth in the United States. Washington, DC: Health Insurance Association of America, 1989. (But see Finkler MD, Wirschafter DD. Why pay extra for Cesarean-section deliveries? Inquiry. 1993; 30:208-15.)
5. Minor AF. The Cost of Maternity Care and Childbirth in the United States. Washington, DC: Health Insurance Association of America, 1989. (But see Finkler MD, Wirschafter DD. Why pay extra for Cesarean-section deliveries? Inquiry. 1993; 30:208-15.)
6. National Center for Health Statistics. Monthly Vital Statistics Report. Final Natality Statistics 1996. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1996.
7. Sachs PS, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F. The risks of lowering the Cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340:1-54.
8. Keeler EB, Park RE, Bell RM, Gifford DS, Keesey J. Adjusting Cesarean delivery rates for case mix. HSR. 1997; 32:4:511-28.
9. Elliot JP, Russel MM, Dickason LA. The labor-adjusted Cesarean section rate: a more informative method than the Cesarean section "rate" for assessing a practitioner's labor and delivery skill. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:139-43.
10. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Assessing the role of case mix in Cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:1-7.
11. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, Rosenthal GE. Impact of risk-adjusting Cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA. 1998;279:1968-72.
12. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary Cesarean rates. Obstet Gyncol. 1999;93:1025-30.
13. Wennberg J, Caper P. Medical practice: why does it vary so much? Hospitals. 1985;March 1:88, 90.
14. Tussig AD, Wojtowycz MA. The Cesarean decision in New York State, 1986: economic and non-economic aspects. Med Care. 1992;30:529-40.
15. Burns LR, Geller SE, Wholey DR. The effect of physician factors on the Cesarean section decision. Med Care. 1995;33: 365-82.