How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences?

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 112, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 658-666

  Paranjothy, S ^a   Frost, C ^b   Thomas, J ^a  

^a National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE MIX; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MATERNAL AGE; OBSTETRIC CARE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILD; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; WALES;

EID: 18744373612     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00501.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Thomas J, Paranjothy S, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;52(10):1-116.
3. Health Canada. Perinatal Health indicators for Canada: A Resource Manual. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.
4. Francome C, Savage W. Caesarean section in Britain and the United States 12% or 24%: is either the right rate? Soc Sci Med 1993;37(10): 1199-1218.
5. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Caesarean Section. Clinical Guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2004.
6. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Births: final data for 1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001;49(1):1-74.
7. Rosenthal AN, Paterson-Brown S. Is there an incremental rise in the risk of obstetric intervention with increasing maternal age? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(10):1064-1069.
8. Cleary R, Beard RW, Chappie J, et al. The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:223-229.
9. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference. Cesarean Childbirth. NIH Consens Statement Online, 3(6). 1998:1-30(22-9).
10. Government Statistical Service. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 1995-96 to 1997-98. London: Government Statistical Service, 2001.
11. Danielian PJ, Wang J, Hall MH. Long-term outcome by method of delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: population based follow up [see comments]. BMJ 1996;312(7044):1451-1453.
12. Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium. Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy: Eighth Annual Report, 8. London: Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium, 2001.
13. Ecker JL, Chen KT, Cohen AP, Riley LE, Lieberman ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185(4):883-887.
14. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174(1 Pt 1):199-205.
15. Zeger SL, Liang KY. An overview of methods for the analysis of longitudinal data. Stat Med 1992;11(14-15):1825-1839.
16. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-1558.
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-560.
18. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med 1984;311(14):887-892.
19. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356:1375-1383.
20. Grant A, Glazener CMA. Elective caesarean section versus expectant management for delivery of the small baby. Cochrane Library, 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
21. Lewis G, editor. Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths: Why Mothers Die 1997-1999: The Fifth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom, 5. Regent's Park, London: RCOG Press, 2001:1-365.
22. Stones RW, Paterson CM, Saunders NJ. Risk factors for major obstetric haemorrhage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 48(1):15-18.
23. Chaim W, Bashiri A, Bar-David J, Shoham-Vardi I, Mazor M. Prevalence and clinical significance of postpartum endometritis and wound infection. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2000;8(2):77-82.
24. Hebert PR, Reed G, Entman SS, Mitchel Jr EF, Berg C, Griffin MR. Serious maternal morbidity after childbirth: prolonged hospital stays and readmissions. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94(6):942-947.
25. Ros HS, Lichtenstein P, Bellocco R, Petersson G, Cnattingius S. Pulmonary embolism and stroke in relation to pregnancy: how can high-risk women be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186(2): 198-203.
26. Hemminki E. Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy - a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996;10(4):366-379.
27. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003;362(9398): 1779-1784.
28. Government Statistical Service. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 1989-90 to 1994-95. Department of Health, 1997 (Statistical Bulletin. 1997/28).
29. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ 2001;322(7294):1089-1093.
30. Parrish KM, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP. Effect of changes in maternal age, parity, and birth weight distribution on primary cesarean delivery rates [see comments]. JAMA 1994; 271(6):443-447.
31. Kirsop R, Jenkins GJ, Saunders DM, Houghton CR. The influence of maternal age on cesarean section rates. Aust N Z J Public Health 1992;32(3):206-207.
32. Menard MK. Cesarean delivery rates in the United States. The 1990s. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999;26(2):275-286.
33. Keeler EB, Park RE, Bell RM, Gifford DS, Keesey J. Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix. Health Serv Res 1997; 32(4):511-528.
34. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(1):1-7.
35. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. Induction of Labour No. 9. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
36. Lialios G, Kaponis A, Adonakis G. Maternal age as an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 67(3):187-188.
37. Gordon D, Milberg J, Daling J, Hickok D. Advanced maternal age as a risk factor for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77(4):493-497.
38. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93(6): 1025-1030.
39. David S, Mamelle N, Riviere O. Estimation of an expected caesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the AUDIPOG Sentinelle Network (France). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108(9):919-926.
40. Parazzini F, Pirotta N, La Vecchia C, Fedele L. Determinants of caesarean section rates in Italy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99(3):203-206.
41. Dillon WP, Choate JW, Nusbaum ML, McCarthy MA, McCall M, Rosen MG. Obstetric care and cesarean birth rates: a program to monitor quality of care. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80(5):731-737.
42. Gomes UA, Silva AA, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Risk factors for the increasing caesarean section rate in Southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978-1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol 1999; 28(4):687-694.
43. Braveman P, Egerter S, Edmonston F, Verdon M. Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California. Am J Public Health 1995;85(5):625-630.
44. RADIUS Study Group, Harlow BL, Frigoletto FD, Cramer DW, et al. Epidemiologic predictors of cesarean section in nulliparous patients at low risk. Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172(1 Pt 1): 156-162.
45. Scholz HS, Haas J, Petru E. Do primiparas aged 40 years or older carry an increased obstetric risk? Prev Med 1999;29(4):263-266.
46. Versi E, Liu KL, Chia P, Seddon G. Obstetric outcome of Bangladeshi women in East London. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102(8):630-637.
47. Petrou S, Kupek E, Vause S, Maresh M. Clinical, provider and sociodemographic determinants of the number of antenatal visits in England and Wales. Soc Sci Med 2001;56:1123-1134.
48. Kupek E, Petrou S, Vause S, Maresh M. Clinical, provider and sociodemographic predictors of late initiation of antenatal care in England and Wales. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109:265-273.
49. Webster LA, Daling JR, McFarlane C, Ashley D, Warren CW. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in Jamaica. J Biosoc Sci 1992;24(4):515-525.
50. Zalar Jr RW, Quilligan EJ. The influence of scalp sampling on the cesarean section rate for fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135(2):239-246.
51. Elliott JP, Russell 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 skills [see comments]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177(1):139-143.
52. Robson MS. Labor Ward Audit. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997:559-570 [chapter 21].
53. Whitsel AI, Capeless EC, Abel DE, Stuart GS. Adjustment for case mix in comparisons of cesarean delivery rates: university versus community hospitals in Vermont. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183(5): 1170-1175.
54. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, Rosenthal GE. Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA 1998;279(24):1968-1972.
55. Glantz JC. Cesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(6):1425-1431.
56. Roohan PJ, Josberger RE, Gesten FC. Risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates for managed care plans in New York State, 1998. Matern Child Health J 2001;5(3):169-177.
57. McKenzie L, Stephenson PA. Variation in cesarean section rates among hospitals in Washington State. Am J Public Health 1993; 83(8):1109-1112.
58. Kritchevsky SB, Braun BI, Gross PA, Newcomb CS, Kelleher CA, Simmons BP. Definition and adjustment of cesarean section rates and assessments of hospital performance. Int J Qual Health Care 1999; 11(4):283-291.
59. Rabilloud M, Ecochard R, Esteve J. Maternity hospitals ranking on prophylactic caesarean section rates: uncertainty associated with ranks. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;94(1):139-144.
60. Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(38):1-130.
61. Trujillo-Hernandez B, Rios-Silva M, Huerta M, Trujillo X, Vasquez C, Millan-Guerrero R. Frequency of, indications for and clinical epidemiological characteristics of first time cesarean section, compared with repeated cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2002; 267(1):27-32.
62. van Roosmalen J, van der Does CD. Caesarean birth rates worldwide. A search for determinants. Trop Geogr Med 1995;47(11):19-22.
63. Najmi SR, Rehan N. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in a teaching hospital of Pakistan. J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 20(5):479-483.
64. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: The Use and Interpretation of Cardiotocography in Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring. Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines. London: RCOG Press, 2001. No. 8.