Trends in mode of delivery during 1984-2003: Can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications?

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 114, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 855-864

  O'Leary, C M ^a   De Klerk, N ^a   Keogh, J ^b   Pennell, C ^c   De Groot, J ^a   York, L ^d   Mulroy, S ^e   Stanley, F J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Australia)

^e KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Elective caesarean section; Emergency caesarean section; Spontaneous vaginal delivery; Trends

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DELIVERY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; EMERGENCY SURGERY; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; WESTERN AUSTRALIA;

EID: 34250337277     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01307.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S. Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998 105 : 45 52.
2. Arias E, MacDorman MF, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics - 2002 [see comment]. Pediatrics 2003 112 : 1215 30.
3. Marieskind H. An Evaluation of Cesarean Section in the United States. Washington, DC : Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979.
4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Cesarean Childbirth. Report No. 82-2067. Bethesda, MD : National Institutes of Health, 1981.
5. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's health. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guidelines. London : Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, 2004.
6. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999 319 : 1397 400.
7. Merchant KM, Villar J, Kestler E. Maternal height and newborn size relative to risk of intrapartum caesarean delivery and perinatal distress. BJOG 2001 108 : 689 96.
8. Kirby RS. Trends in labor induction in the United States: is it true that what goes up must come down? Birth 2004 31 : 148 51.
9. Thacker SB, Stroup D, Chang M. Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor [update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000063; PMID: 10796109]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001 CD000063.
10. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Obstetricians' personal choice and mode of delivery [see comment]. Lancet 1996 347 : 544.
11. Murray SF. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 2000 321 : 1501 5.
12. Turcotte L, Robst J, Polachek S. Medicaid coverage and medical interventions during pregnancy. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2005 5 : 255 71.
13. Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001 15 : 1 15.
14. Victora CG, Barros FC. Beware: unnecessary caesarean sections may be hazardous [comment]. Lancet 2006 367 : 1796 7.
15. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Why Mothers Die 2000-2002: The Sixth Report of Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. London : RCOG Press, 2004.
16. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Why Mothers Die 1997-1999: The Fifth Report of Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. London : RCOG Press, 2001.
17. Li T, Rhoads GG, Smulian J, Demissie K, Wartenberg D, Kruse L. Physician cesarean delivery rates and risk-adjusted perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003 101 : 1204 12.
18. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America [see comment]. Lancet 2006 367 : 1819 29.
19. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med 1984 311 : 887 92.
20. Sakala C. Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: introduction to a symposium. Soc Sci Med 1993 37 : 1177 98.
21. McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones C, Cole S, Wilkinson C. Caesarean Section in Scotland 1994/5: A National Audit. Edinburgh : Scottish Programme for Clinical Effectiveness in Reproductive Health, 1995.
22. Notzon FC, Placek PJ, Taffel SM. Comparisons of national cesarean section rates. N Engl J Med 1987 316 : 386 9.
23. Biringer A, Davies B, Nimrod C, Sternberg C, Youens W. Attaining and Maintaining Best Practices in the Use of Caesarean Sections. An Analysis of Four Ontario Hospitals. Ottawa, Canada : Caesarean Section Working Group of the Ontario Women's Health Council, 2000.
24. Stanley FJ, Croft ML, Gibbins J, Read AW. A population database for maternal and child health research in Western Australia using record linkage. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1994 8 : 433 47.
25. Blair E, Liu Y, Cosgrove P. Choosing the best estimate of gestational age from routinely collected population-based perinatal data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2004 18 : 270 6.
26. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Douglas I, Tracy SK, Peat B. Trends in labour and birth interventions among low-risk women in New South Wales. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002 42 : 176 81.
27. Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL. A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005 105 : 751 6.
28. Odlind V, Haglund B, Pakkanen M, Otterblad Olausson P. Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973-2000. Trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish Medical Birth Register [see comment]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003 82 : 516 28.
29. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ, Martin JA, Malloy MH. Trends and characteristics of induced labour in the United States, 1989-98. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002 16 : 263 73.
30. 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 : 883 7.
31. Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003 102 : 287 93.
32. 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 : 1064 9.
33. Patel R, Peters T, Murphy D, ALSPAC. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12 944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005 34 : 353 67.
34. Cnattingius R, Hoglund B, Kieler H. Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005 84 : 456 62.
35. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London : Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit, 2001.
36. Minkoff H, Powderly KR, Chervenak F, McCullough LB. Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery [see comment]. Obstet Gynecol 2004 103 : 387 92.
37. MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I, Annan B. Indications for caesarean section in a consultant obstetric unit over three decades. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003 23 : 233 8.
38. Lavender T, Kingdon C, Hart A, Gyte G, Gabbay M, Neilson JP. Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery [see comment]. BMJ 2005 331 : 490 1.
39. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 CD004224.
40. Rowe RE, Garcia J. Social class, ethnicity and attendance for antenatal care in the United Kingdom: a systematic review. J Public Health Med 2003 25 : 113 19.
41. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions [see comment]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 180 : 628 33.
42. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999 94 : 600 7.
43. RCOG. Induction of Labour. Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Number 9. London : Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2001.
44. ACOG. Induction of Labor: ACOG Practice Bulletin; No. 10. Washington, DC : American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 1999 www.guideline.gov/ summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=3960&nbr=3098 Accessed 4 August 2006 and 22 March 2007.
45. Hall LF, Neubert AG. Obesity and pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2005 60 : 253 60.
46. Read AW, Prendiville WJ, Dawes VP, Stanley FJ. Cesarean section and operative vaginal delivery in low-risk primiparous women, Western Australia. Am J Public Health 1994 84 : 37 42.
47. Di Cianni G, Volpe L, Lencioni C, Miccoli R, Cuccuru I, Ghio A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for gestational diabetes assessed by universal screening. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2003 62 : 131 7.
48. Glazer NL, Hendrickson AF, Schellenbaum GD, Mueller BA. Weight change and the risk of gestational diabetes in obese women. Epidemiology 2004 15 : 733 7.