Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 108, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1506-1516

  Gossman, Ginger L ^a   Joesch, Jutta M ^a   Tanfer, Koray ^a  

^a BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CODING; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; MATERNAL BEHAVIOR; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDLINE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREND STUDY; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845426303     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000242564.79349.b7     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Leeman L. Patient-choice cesarean delivery. Am Fam Physician 2005;72:697-700,705.
2. Klein MC. Quick fix culture: the cesarean-section-on-demand debate. Birth 2004;31:161-4.
3. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004;59:601-16.
4. Surgery and patient choice. In: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. 2nd ed. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2004.
5. Bost BW. Cesarean delivery on demand: what will it cost? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1418-23.
6. Harer WB Jr. Elective cesarean: an option for primiparas? OBG Management 2002;14:38-44.
7. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. The Lancet 2000;356:1677-80.
8. Harer WB Jr. Patient choice cesarean [editorial]. ACOG Clinical Review 2000;5:1,13,15,16.
9. Minkoff H, Powderly KR, Chervenak F, McCullough LB. Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:387-92.
10. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348:946-50.
11. Nygaard I, Cruikshank DP. Should all women be offered elective cesarean delivery? Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:217-9.
12. Magee M. Relationship-based health care in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, South Africa, and Japan: a comparative study of patient and physician perceptions worldwide. Presented at the World Medical Association "Patient Safety in Care and Research," September 11, 2003. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/press/pdf/2003_15.pdf. Retrieved February 20, 2006.
13. Schenker JG, Cain JM. FIGO Committee Report: FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;64:317-22.
14. Recommendations on Ethical Issues in Obstetrics and Gynecology by the FIGO Committee for Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. London (UK): FIGO; 2003. Available at: http://www.figo.org/content/PDF/ ethicsguidelines-text_2003.pdf. Retrieved February 22, 2006.
15. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics.
16. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2004 Public Use Data File Documentation. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2006.
17. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2003 Public Use Data File Documentation. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2005.
18. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2002 Public Use Data File Documentation. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2004.
19. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2001 Public Use Data File Documentation. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2003.
20. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 1991-2000 Multi-Year Public Use Data File Documentation. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2002.
21. Kozak LJ, Lees KA, DeFrances CJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2003 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. Vital Health Stat 13 2006;160:1-206.
22. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Gornbein JA, Platt LD. Using administrative data to identify indications for elective primary cesarean delivery. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1387-401.
23. Henry OA, Gregory KD, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1143-6.
24. ACOG Committee Opinion: Inappropriate use of the terms fetal distress and birth asphyxia. Number 197, February 1998 (replaces no.137, April 1994). Committee on Obstetric Practice. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998;61:309-10.
25. Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL. A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:751-6.
26. Margolin BH. Test for trend in proportions. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, vol. 9. New York (NY): Wiley; 1998:334-6.
27. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. New York (NY): Wiley; 1990.
28. Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, Thaler HT, Chervenak FA. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1137-41.
29. National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request, March 27-29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1386-97.
30. Viswanathan M, Visco AG, Hartmann K, Wechter ME, Gartlehner G, Wu JM, et al. Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 133. AHRQ Publication No. 06-E009. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/ evidence/pdf/cesarean/cesarreq.pdf. Retrieved April 3, 2006.
31. HealthGrades. HealthGrades Quality Study: Third Annual Report on "Patient-Choice" Cesarean Section Rates in the United States. Golden (CO): Health Grades, Inc; 2005.
32. HealthGrades. HealthGrades Quality Study: "Patient Choice" Cesarean Section Rates Continue to Rise Rapidly in the United States. Golden (CO): Health Grades, Inc; 2004.
33. HealthGrades. HealthGrades Quality Study: First-Time Pre-planned and "Patient Choice" Cesarean Section Rates in the United States. Golden (CO): Health Grades, Inc; 2003.
34. McFarlin BL. Elective cesarean birth: issues and ethics of an informed decision. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004;49:421-9.
35. Queenan JT. Elective cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1135-6.
36. Sharma G, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Minkoff H. Ethical considerations in elective cesarean delivery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:404-8.
37. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. An ethically justified algorithm for offering, recommending, and performing cesarean delivery and its application in managed care practice. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:302-5.
38. ACOG Practice Bulletin #54: vaginal birth after previous cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:203-12.
39. Caring for patients: sterilization of women, including those with mental disabilities. In: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. 2nd ed. Washington (DC): ACOG; 2004.
40. Childbirth Connections. New national survey results from mothers refute belief that women are requesting cesarean sections without medical reason. Childbirth Connections; March 20, 2006. Available at: http://www. childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/ltmIIpressrelease.pdf. Retrieved April 3, 2006.
41. HarrisInteractive. Second national U.S. Listening to Mothers survey methodology. Childbirth Connections. Available at: http://www. childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/LTM_II_methodology.pdf. Retrieved April 4, 2006.
42. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Complete summary for gestational diabetes mellitus. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Available at: http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=15&doc_id= 3979&nbr=3118. Retrieved February 8, 2006.
43. Turok DK, Ratcliffe SD, Baxley EG. Management of gestational diabetes mellitus. Am Fam Physician 2003;68: 1767-72.
44. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 30, September 2001 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 200, December 1994). Gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:525-38.
45. Chatfield J. ACOG issues guidelines on fetal macrosomia. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Am Fam Physician 2001;64:169-70.