Private-sector caesarean sections in perspective

South African Medical Journal

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 257-260

  Rothberg, Alan D ^a   McLeod, Heather ^b  

^a Solutio Health Risk Management   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILD HEALTH CARE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MATERNAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT RIGHT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIVATE PRACTICE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SURGICAL RISK;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT RIGHTS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, HIGH-RISK; PRIVATE SECTOR; SOUTH AFRICA; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 17844374106     PISSN: 02569574     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bateman C. Rendering unto Caesar? (Izindaba). S Afr Med J 2004; 94: 800-802.
2. MacDonald C, Pinion SB, MacLeod UM. Scottish female obstetricians' views on elective cesarean section and personal choice for delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22: 586-589.
3. McGurgan P, Coulter-Smith S, O'Donovan PJ. A national confidential survey of obstetrician's personal preferences regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 97: 1719.
4. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004; 59 601-616.
5. Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S. Obstetricians' opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 577-580.
6. Baldwin LM, Hart LG, Lloyd M, Fordyce M, Rosenblatt RA. Defensive medicine and obstetrics. JAMA 1995; 274: 1606-1610.
7. Grant D, McInnes MM. Malpractice experience and the incidence of cesarean delivery: a physician-level longitudinal analysis. Inquiry 2004; 41: 170-188.
8. Lyall EG, Blott M, de Ruiter A, et al. Guidelines for the management of HIV infection in pregnant women and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission. HIV Med 2002; 2: 314-334.
9. Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary cesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363 1934-1940.
10. Rothberg AD, Cockett C, Pels L, Pauer E. Do caesarean section rates depend on who manages the prenatal care? 23rd Conference on Priorities in Perinatal Care in Southern Africa, Bela Bela, 9-12 March 2004.
11. Better benefit design. Board of Healthcare Funders Info-line 2004; Vol 2; October 12. zolamβhfglobal.com
12. de Abajo FJ, Meseguer CM, Antinolo G , et al. Labor induction with dinoprostone or oxytocine and postpartum disseminated intravascular coagulation: a hospital-based case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2OO4; 191: 1637-1643.
13. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003; 362 1779-1784.
14. Wen SW, Rusen ID, Walker M, et al. Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial labor and elective cesarean section among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1263-1269.
15. Windrim R. Vaginal delivery in birth centre after previous caesarean section. Lancet 2005; 365: 106-107.
16. Rothberg AD. Expanding the role of physicians in health technology assessment. Presentation in session on Examining Dissemination Strategies and Decision Makers' Needs and Expectations. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care. Canmore, Canada, 22-25 June 2003.
17. Formula Task Team Report 8 January 2004. Indexed under: Final Reports, Risk Equalisation Fund Task Team Website. Council for Medical Schemes. www.medicalschemes.com (last accessed 17 December 2004).