Understanding the factors associated with differences in caesarean section rates at hospital level: The case of Latin America

Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 574-581

  Taljaard, Monica ^a   Donner, Allan ^b   Villar, José ^c   Wojdyla, Daniel ^d   Faundes, Anibal ^e   Zavaleta, Nelly ^f   Acosta, Arnaldo ^g  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b ROBARTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales   (Argentina)

^e Center for Mother and Child Research of Campinas   (Brazil)

^f INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN NUTRICIONAL   (Peru)

^g UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE ASUNCIÓN   (Paraguay)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Economic incentive; Latin America; Private hospitals; Risk factors

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LATIN AMERICA; ODDS RATIO; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 70350014875     PISSN: 02695022     EISSN: 13653016     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01072.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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 caesarean delivery. Obstetrics And Gynecology 2003 102 : 791 800.
2. Sakala C. Medically unnecessary caesarean section births: introduction to a symposium. Social Science and Medicine 1993 37 : 1177 1198.
3. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. British Medical Journal 2007 335 : 1025.
4. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with 'no indicated risk,' United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006 33 : 175 182.
5. Faundes A, Cecatti JG. Which policy for caesarean sections in Brazil? An analysis of trends and consequences. Health Policy and Planning 1993 8 : 33 42.
6. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing caesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007 34 : 53 64.
7. Holubkov R, Holt VL, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP. Analysis, assessment, and presentation of risk-adjusted statewide obstetrical care data: the StORQS II study in Washington State. Health Services Research 1998 33 : 531 548.
8. Mawson AR. Reducing cesarean delivery rates in managed care organizations. American Journal of Managed Care 2002 8 : 730 740.
9. Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, Amelink-Verburg MP, Merkus JMWM, den Ouden AL, Van Hemel OJS. Randomized clinical trial on the effect of the Dutch obstetric peer review system. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2002 102 : 21 30.
10. Main EK. Reducing cesarean birth rates with data-driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics 1999 103 : 374 383.
11. 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. Lancet 2006 367 : 1819 1829.
12. Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London : Arnold, 2000.
13. DeLong ER, Peterson ED, DeLong DM, Muhlbaier LD, Hackett S, Mark DB. Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling. Statistics in Medicine 1997 16 : 2645 2664.
14. Littell R, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger BD, Schabenberger O. SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd edn. Cary, NC : SAS Institute Inc., 2006.
15. Goldstein H, Spiegelhalter DJ. League tables and their limitations: statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society [Series A 1996 159 : 385 409.
16. Robinson GK. That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Statistical Science 1991 6 : 15 32.
17. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Assessing the role of case mix in caesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998 92 : 1 7.
18. Korst LM, Gornbein JA, Gregory KD. Rethinking the cesarean rate: how pregnancy complications may affect interhospital comparisons. Medical Care 2005 43 : 237 245.
19. Normand ST, Glickman ME, Gatsonis CA. Statistical methods for profiling providers of medical care: issues and applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997 92 : 803 814.
20. Tang C, Wang H, Hsu C, Su H, Chen M, Lin H. Risk-adjusted cesarean section rates for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 2006 6 : 246.
21. Sandmire HF. A guest editorial: every obstetric department should have a caesarean birth monitor. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1996 51 : 703 704.