Literature DB >> 22808856

[Rates of caesarean sections tn two types of private hospitals: restriced-access and open-access].

Leonardo Paleari1, Luz Gibbons, Sandra Chacón, Verónica Ramil, José M Belizán.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, rising rates of caesarean section are of concern in the medical community in many countries, especially in Latin America.
OBJECTIVE: Determine if there is a difference in the rate of Caesarean sections in a restricted-access hospital (HC) and an open-access hospital (HA) using the Robson classification to explain potential differences. MATERIAL AND
METHOD: A prospective cohort study was conducted. This in volved all patients that attended the obstetrics sector in the two hospitals in Buenos Aires where they gave birth between 1 June 2009 and 25h January 2010. The open-access hospital is open to doctors with varying professional training and differing clinical practice. The restricted-access hospital, on the other hand, can only be attended by specified doctors with certain professional training; their medical) conduct is based on service standards and clinical practice.
RESULTS: Over the study period 762 patients who fulfilled the study criteria were included from the open-access hospital and 768 from the restricted-access hospital. The global rate of caesarean sections in the HAwas 53.5%, and 48.7% in the HC, RR 1.09 (CI 0.99-1.21) a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.058). The onset of spontaneous labour in the HAwas significantly more than in the HC (74.9% vs. 41.8%) RR 2.66 (CU.98-3.57). The induced labour was significantly lower in HA (9,7% vs. 28,3%); RR 0.34 (CI 0.27-0.44). Elective caesarean sections were significantly lower in the HA (15.3% vs. 29.9%) RR 0.51 (CI 0.42-0.62).
CONCLUSION: This study reveals a similar rate of caesarean sections in two private hospitals with different systems of care. However, it observed that the HA has a greater tendency to operate on patients at the onset of spontaneous labour and the HC has a greater number of induced labour and elective caesarean section.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22808856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ginecol Obstet Mex        ISSN: 0300-9041


  5 in total

1.  Obstetrical providers' preferred mode of delivery and attitude towards non-medically indicated caesarean sections: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  J C Rivo; M Amyx; V Pingray; R A Casale; A E Fiorillo; H B Krupitzki; J D Malamud; M Mendilaharzu; M L Medina; A B Del Pino; L Ribola; J A Schvartzman; G M Tartalo; M Trasmonte; S Varela; F Althabe; J M Belizán
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Women's preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Agustina Mazzoni; Fernando Althabe; Laura Gutierrez; Luz Gibbons; Nancy H Liu; Ana María Bonotti; Gustavo H Izbizky; Marta Ferrary; Nora Viergue; Silvia I Vigil; Gabriela Zalazar Denett; José M Belizán
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Impact of antenatal oxytocin infusion on neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with elective cesarean section.

Authors:  Ibrahim Abdelazim; Mohamed M M Farghali; Assem A M Elbiaa; Khaled M Abdelrazak; Mohamed Hussain; Amr H Yehia; Mona Rashad
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.318

4.  Feasibility of Conducting a Trial Assessing Benefits and Risks of Planned Caesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Melissa M Amyx; Fernando Althabe; Julie Rivo; Verónica Pingray; Nicole Minckas; María Belizán; Luz Gibbons; Gerardo T Murga; Ángel E Fiorillo; Julio D Malamud; Roberto A Casale; Gabriela Cormick; José M Belizán
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2021-01-03

Review 5.  A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.

Authors:  Ana Pilar Betrán; Nadia Vindevoghel; Joao Paulo Souza; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Maria Regina Torloni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.