Rising rates, changing relationships: Caesarean section and its correlates in South Korea, 1988-2000

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 112, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 810-819

  Lee, Sang Il ^a   Khang, Young Ho ^a   Yun, Sungcheol ^b   Jo, Min Woo ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEMALE FERTILITY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OCCUPATION; PARITY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIOECONOMICS; SOUTH KOREA; URBANIZATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; INCOME; KOREA; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RELIGION; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; RURAL HEALTH; URBAN HEALTH;

EID: 20744452197     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00535.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999;354:776.
2. Schuitemaker N, van Roosmalen J, Dekker G, et al. Maternal mortality after cesarean section in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:332-334.
3. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ 2001;322:1089-1094.
4. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR. Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 2000;283:2411-2416.
5. Chaim W, Bashiri A, Bar-David J, Shoham-Vardi I, Mazor M. Prevalence and clinical significance of postpartum endometritis and would infection. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2000;8:77-82.
6. Madar J, Richmond S, Hey E. Surfactant-deficient respiratory distress after elective delivery at 'term'. Acta Paediatr 1999;88:1244-1248.
7. Henderson J, McCandlish R, Kumiega L, Petrou S. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:149-157.
8. Gregory KD, Ramicone E, Chan L, Kahn KL. Cesarean deliveries for Medicaid patients: a comparison in public and private hospitals in Los Angeles County. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:1177-1184.
9. Korea Institute for Population and Health. 1982 National Fertility and Family Health Survey Report. Seoul: Korea Institute for Population and Health, 1982.
10. Kim SK, Cho AJ, Lee SS, Kim AK, Song IJ. 2000 National Fertility and Family Health Survey Report. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 2000.
11. Porreco RP, Thorp IA. The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:369-374.
12. National Health Insurance Corporation of Korea. 2002 Report on Caesarean Section Rates in Korea. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation, 2003.
13. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean section in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-1402.
14. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;ii:436-437.
15. Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth 2002;29:28-39.
16. Janowitz B, Rodrigues W, Covington DL, Arruda JM, Morris L. Cesarean delivery in northeast region of Brazil, 1978-80. Am J Public Health 1985;75:560-562.
17. Rodrigues J. Urban hospital cesarean section delivery rates in Paraiba State, Brazil, 1977-81. Am J Public Health 1988;78:704-705.
18. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of CS. N Engl J Med 1989;321:233-239.
19. Barras FC, Vaughan JP, Victoria CG, Huttly SRA. Epidemic of CS in Brazil. Lancet 1991;338:167-169.
20. Signorelli C, Elliott P, Cattaruzza MS, Osborn J. Trend of caesarean section in Italy: an examination of national data 1980-1985. Int J Epidemiol 1991;20:712-716.
21. Tussing AD, Wojtowycz MA. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects. Med Care 1992;30: 529-540.
22. Bertollini R, DiLallo D, Spadea T, Perucci C. Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates. Am J Public Health 1992;82:257-261.
23. Faundes A, Cecatti JG. Which policy for caesarean sections in Brazil? An analysis of trends and consequences. Health Policy Plan 1993; 8:33-42.
24. Parazzini F, Pirotta N, La Vecchia C, Fedele L. Determinants of caesarean section rates in Italy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:203-206.
25. Braveman P, Egerter S, Edmonston F, Verdon M. Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California. Am J Public Health 1995;85:625-630.
26. Cai WW, Marks JS, Chen CH, Zhuang YX, Morris L, Harris JR. Increased cesarean section rates and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China. Am J Public Health 1998;88:777-780.
27. Tatar M, Gunalp S, Somunoglu S, Demirol A. Women's perceptions of caesarean section: reflections from a Turkish teaching hospital. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:1227-1233.
28. Padmadas SS, Kumar SS, Nair SB, Kumari A. Caesarean section delivery in Kerala, India: evidence from a National Family Health Survey. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:511-521.
29. Guihard P, Blondel B. Trends in risk factors for caesarean sections in France between 1981 and 1995: lessons for reducing the rates in the future. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:48-55.
30. Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BWC. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population-based cross sectional study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;110:106-111.
31. 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. JAMA 1994;271:443-447.
32. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 2000.
33. National Statistical Office of Korea. 2000 Population and Housing Census, 1985. Available: http://kosis.nso.go.kr/ (accessed 6 November 2003).
34. Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee MS. Women's attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea-a society with high cesarean section rates. Birth 2004;31;108-116.
35. Lynch JW, Kaplan GA. Socioeconomic position. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, editors. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000:13-35.
36. Leigh JP. Direct and indirect effects of education on health. Soc Sci Med 1983;17:227-234.
37. Kenkel DS. Health behavior, health knowledge, and schooling. J Polit Econ 1991;99:287-305.
38. Ahn HS, Kwon YD, Lee YS, Kim MK, Kim YI, Shin YS. Analysis of institutional factors influencing regional variations in caesarean section rate. Korean J Health Policy Adm 1991;1:27-41.
39. Kim HK, Lee JU, Park KW, Moon OR. Regional variations in the caesarean section rate and its determinants in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 1992;25:312-329.
40. National Statistical Office of Korea. The Economically Active Population Survey. Available: http://kosis.nso.go.kr/ (accessed 16 August 2004).
41. Kim SK, Choi BH, Jung KH, et al. Socioeconomic Impacts and Policies of Low Fertility. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 2002.
42. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Review of the Korean Health Care System. Paris: OECD, 2002.
43. Tsai YW, Hu TW. National health insurance, physician financial incentives, and primary cesarean deliveries in Taiwan. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1514-1517.
44. Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea. 2002 Health and Welfare White Report. Kwachon: Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea, 2003.
45. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000;356:1677-1680.
46. Murray SF, Pradenas FS. Health sector reform and rise of caesarean birth in Chile. Lancet 1997;349:64.