Can Differences in Labor Induction Rates Be Explained by Case Mix?

Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 175-181

  Glantz, J Christopher ^a   Guzick, David S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case mix; Labor, induced

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; BIRTH CERTIFICATE; CALCULATION; COMORBIDITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYDRAMNIOS; LABOR INDUCTION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MACROSOMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OLIGOHYDRAMNIOS; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREMATURE FETUS MEMBRANE RUPTURE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; BIRTH CERTIFICATES; DATABASES; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; NEW YORK; PREGNANCY; PROBABILITY; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 1642423822     PISSN: 00247758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Paul-Shaheen P, Clark JD, Williams D: Small area analysis: A review and analysis of the North American literature. J Health Polit Policy Law 1987;12:741-809
2. Glantz JC: Cesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181: 1425-1431
3. Keeler EB, Park RE, Bell RM, et al: Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix. Health Serv Res 1997;32:511-528
4. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, et al: Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA 1998;279:1968-1972
5. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, et al: Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:1-7
6. Whitsel AI, Capeless EC, Abel DE, et al: Adjustment for case mix in comparisons of cesarean delivery rates: University versus community hospitals in Vermont. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1170-1175
7. Fleissig A: Prevalence of procedures in childbirth. BMJ 1993;306:494-495
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevension: Births: Final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002;51:1-103
9. Järvelin MR, Hartikainen-Sorri AL, Rantakallio P: Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:310-315
10. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, et al: Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600-607
11. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, et al: Report of final natality statistics, 1995. Monthly Vital Stat Rep 1997;45:1-81
12. Heres MHB, Elferink-Stinkins PM, Van Hemel OJS, et al: The Dutch obstetric intervention study: Variations in practice patterns. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995;50:145-150
13. Coonrood DV, Bay C, Kishi GY: The epidemiology of labor induction: Arizona, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182: 1355-1362
14. Glantz JC: Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: What's the difference? Birth 2003;30:168-174
15. Cain K, Diehr P: Testing the null hypothesis in small area analysis. Health Serv Res 1992;27:267-294
16. Diehr P, Cain K, Connell F, et al: What is too much variation? The null hypothesis in small-area analysis. Health Serv Res 1990;24:741-771
17. McDuffie RS Jr, Beck A, Bischoff K, et al: Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996;275:847-851
18. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O: Elective delivery in pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2)CD001997, 2001
19. Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC: Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:492-496
20. Gonen O, Rosen DJD, Dolfin Z, Tepper R, Marrkov S, Fejgin MD: Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: A randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89: 913-917
21. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL: Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:917-922
22. Prysak M, Castronova FC: Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: A case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:47-52
23. Piper JM, Mitchel EF, Snowden M, et al: Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:758-768
24. Teperi J: Multi-method approach to the assessment of data quality in the Finnish medical birth registry. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993;47:242-247
25. Parrish KM, Holt VL, Connell FA, et al: Variations in the accuracy of obstetric procedures and diagnoses on birth records in Washington state, 1989. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138: 119-127
26. Frost F, Starzyk P, George S, et al: Birth certificate reporting: The effect of birth certificate design. Am J Public Health 1984; 74:505-506
27. Maresh M, Dawson AM, Beard RW: Assessment of an online computerized perinatal data collection and information system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:1239-1245
28. Creasy RK, Resnik R: Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1999
29. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, et al: Williams Obstetrics. Norwalk, Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 1996
30. Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL: Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1996