Medical and non-medical factors associated with cesarean section rates in a university hospital in southern Brazil;Fatores médicos e não-médicos associados às taxas de cesariana em um hospital universitário no Sul do Brasil

Cadernos de Saude Publica

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1051-1061

  Freitas, Paulo Fontoura ^a,b   Sakae, Thiago Mamôru ^a,b   Lebarbechon Polli Jacomino, Maria Eduarda M ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Attributable risk; Cesarean section; Risk factors; University hospitals

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRENATAL CARE; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS; TIME; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ADULT; BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PRENATAL CARE; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 43449119547     PISSN: 0102311X     EISSN: 16784464     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0102-311X2008000500012     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. a Ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Guanabara Koogan; 1998.
2. Moraes MS, Goldenberg P. Cesarianas: um perfil epidêmico. Cad Saúde Pública 2001; 17:509-19.
3. Faúndes A, Cecatti JG. Which policy for cesarean section in Brazil? Analysis of thends and consequences. Health Policy Plan 1993; 8:33-42.
4. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2:436-7.
5. Barros F, Vaughan JP, Victora CG, Huttly S. Epidemic of caesarean sections in Brazil. Lancet 1991; 338:167-9.
6. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999; 319:397-400.
7. Departamento de Informática do SUS. Sistema de Informações de Nascidos Vivos. http://www.datasus.gov.br/catalogo/ sinasc.htm (acessado em 26/Fev/2006).
8. Faúndes A, Cecatti JG. A operação cesariana no Brasil. Incidência, tendências, causas, conseqüências e propostas de ação. Cad Saúde Pública 1991; 7:150-73.
9. D'Orsi E, Chor D, Giffin K, Angulo-Tuesta A, Barbosa GP, Gama AS, et al. Fatores associados à realização de cesarianas e qualidade da atenção ao parto no Município do Rio de Janeiro. Rev Saúde Pública 2005; 39:646-54.
10. Perez GJG, Lopez MGV, Pivaral CC, Muñoz A, Jalle A. Cesarean sections in Mexico: are there too many? Health Policy Plan 2001; 16:62-7.
11. Diniz CSG. Entre técnica e os direitos humanos: possibilidades e limites da humanização da assistência ao parto [Tese de Doutorado]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo; 2001.
12. Behague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002; 324:942-5.
13. Bailit JL, Love TE, Mercer B. Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:800-3.
14. Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L, O'Connell CM, Allen VM, Chandra S, et al. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:791-800.
15. Freitas PF, Drachler ML, Leite JCC, Grassi PR. Desigualdade social nas taxas de cesariana em primíparas no Rio Grande do Sul. Rev Saúde Pública 2005; 39:761-7.
16. Yazlle MEHD, Rocha JSY, Mendes MC, Patta MC, Marcolin AC, Azevedo GD. Incidência de cesáreas segundo fonte de financiamento da assistência ao parto. Rev Saúde Pública 2001; 35:202-6.
17. Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3:21.
18. Szklo M, Nieto JF, editors. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers; 2000.
19. Gomes UA, Silva AAM, 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; 28:687-94.
20. Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S. Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83:1178-83.
21. Lin HC, Xirasagar S. Maternal age and the likelihood of a maternal request for cesarean delivery: a 5-year population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192:848-55.
22. Bell JS, Campbell DM, Graham WJ, Penney GC, Ryan M, Hall MH. Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ 2001; 322:894-5.
23. Cabral SALCS, Costa CFF, Cabral Jr. SF. Correlação entre a idade maternal, paridade, gemelaridade, síndrome hipertensiva e ruptura prematura de membranas e a indicação de parto cesáreo. Rev Bras Ginec Obstet 2003; 25:739-44.
24. Uygur D, Gun O, Kelekci S, Ozturk A, Ugur M, Mungan T. Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 119:171-5.
25. Bais JMJ, van der Borden DMR, Pel M, Bonsel GJ, Eskes M, van der Slikke, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section in a population with a low overall caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 96:158-62.
26. Heffner LJ, Elkin H, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:287-93.
27. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93:1025-30.
28. Bailit JL, Garret JM. Stability of risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates over time. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190:395-400.
29. Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ; ALSPAC Study Team. Prenatal risk factor for caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34:353-67.
30. Ehremberg HM, Durnwald CP, Catalano P, Mercer BM. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:969-74.
31. Freitas PF, Behague D. Brazil's culture of caesarean births. Health Exchange 1995; 10:8-9.
32. Althabe F, Belizán JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363:1934-40.
33. MacFarlane A, Chamberlain G. What is happening to caesarean section rates? Lancet 1993; 342:1005-6.
34. Millar WJ, Nair C, Wadhera S. Declining cesarean section rates: a continuing trend? Health statistics division at statistics Canada, Ottawa. Health Rep 1996; 8:7-24.
35. Tornquist CS. The paradoxes of humanized childbirth care in a public maternity ward in Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública 2003; 19:419-27.