Prepartum and intrapartum caesarean section rates at Mater Mothers' Hospital Brisbane 1997-2005

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 564-569

  Janssens, Sarah ^a,c   Wallace, Karen L ^a,b   Chang, Allan M Z ^b  

^a MATER MOTHERS HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b MATER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c NAMBOUR GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Induction of labour; Private care

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MATERNAL AGE; MATERNAL CARE; NULLIPARA; OBESITY; PATIENT MONITORING; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVATE HOSPITAL; SHORT STATURE; AUSTRALIA; DELIVERY; DEMOGRAPHY; FETUS MONITORING; LABOR COMPLICATION; METHODOLOGY; PARITY; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETAL MONITORING; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; MATERNAL AGE; OBESITY; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PARITY; PREGNANCY; QUEENSLAND; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 63449140548     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: 1479828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00920.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; ii: 436-437.
2. Notzon FC, Placek PJ, Taffel SM. Comparisons of national caesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 386-389.
3. Wu W-I. Cesarean delivery in Shantou, China: A retrospective analysis of 1922 women. Birth 2000; 27: 86-90.
4. Chanrachakul B, Herabutya Y, Udomsubpayakul U. Epidemic of caesarean section at the general, private and university hospitals in Thailand. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000; 26: 357-361.
5. Koc I. Increased caesarean section rates in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heath Care 2003; 8: 1-10.
6. Khawaja M, Jurdi R, Kabakian-Khasholian T. Rising trends in cesarean section rates in Egypt. Birth 2004; 31 : 12-16.
7. Cyr R. Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: Commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 932-936.
8. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000; 356: 1677-1680.
9. Anderson GM. Making sense of rising caesarean section rates (ed). BMJ 2004; 329: 696-697.
10. Johnstone M, Coory M. Increase in caesarean section rates among low-risk women in Queensland, 1990-2004. MJA 2006; 185: 404-406.
11. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman D. Rise in 'no indicated risk' primary caesareans in the United States, 1991-2001: Cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2005; 330: 71-72.
12. Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, Keesey J, Keeler E, Kahn KL. Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 589-595.
13. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1511-1515.
14. Cnattingius R, Hoglund B, Kieler H. Emergency caesarean delivery in induction of labor: An evaluation of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 456-462.
15. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 917-922.
16. Mishra US, Ramanathan M. Delivery-related complications and determinants of caesarean section rates in India. Health Policy Plan 2002; 17: 90-98.
17. Ehrenberg HM, Durnwald CP, Catalano P, Mercer BM. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the risk of caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 969-974.
18. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 698-704.
19. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, Van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 690-697.
20. Wilkes PT, Wolf DM, Kronbach DW, Kunze M, Gibbs RS. Risk factors for cesarean delivery at presentation of nulliparous patients in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 1352-1357.
21. Liston W. Rising caesarean section rates: Can evolution and ecology explain some of the difficulties of modern childbirth? J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 559-561.
22. Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis F et al. Cesarean section rates and indications in Greece: Data from a 24-year period in a teaching hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004; 31: 289-292.
23. Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 864-870.
24. Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for caesarean section. Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 1-15.
25. Robson M, Scudamore I, Walsh S. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 199-205.
26. Flamm BL, Berwick DM, Kabcenell A. Reducing cesarean section rates safely: Lessons from a 'breakthrough series' collaborative. Birth 1998; 25: 117-124.
27. NH&MR Council. When does a quality assurance in health care require independent ethical review 2003.
28. Steel RCG, Terrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biomedical Approach, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997; 520-521.
29. Leitch CR, Walker JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: The same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 621-626.
30. Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labor in uncomplicated term pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001; 15: 131-139.
31. Yeast J, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and relationship to Cesarean delivery. A review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 628-633.
32. Thacker S, Stroup D, Peterson H. The safety and efficacy of continuous electronic fetal monitoring: An update. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 86: 613-620.
33. Murray SF. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: Qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 2000; 321: 1501-1505.
34. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 233-239.
35. Sreevidya S, Sathisyasekaran B. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): A population-based cross sectional study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 110: 106-111.
36. Griffiths A, Avasarala S, Wiener J. A prospective observational study of emergency caesarean section rates and the effect of the labour ward experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 25: 666-668.
37. Mossialos E, Allin S, Karras K, Davaki K. An investigation of Caesarean sections in three Greek hospitals: The impact of financial incentives and convenience. Eur J Public Health 2005; 15: 288-295.
38. Vimercati A, Greco P, Kardashi A et al. Choice of caesarean section and perception of legal pressure. J Perinat Med 2000; 28: 111-117.
39. Dubay L, Kaestner R, Waidmann T. The impact of malpractice fears on caesarean section rates. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 491-522.
40. Brown I, Shelton H. Physician demand for leisure: Implications for cesarean section rates. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 233-242.
41. Willcox S. Promoting private health insurance in Australia. Health Aff 2001; 20: 152-162.
42. Mills RJ. Health Insurance Coverage: 2000. Current Population Reports: US Census Bureau. 2001.
43. Starr G, Taylor A, Wilson D, Harbinger C. Private health insurance status in South Australia, October 2000. Centre for Population Studies in Epidemiology; South Australian Department of Human Services. 2000.