BACKGROUND: In many countries the closure of small maternity units has raised concerns about how the concentration of low-risk pregnancies in large specialized units might affect the management of childbirth. We aimed to assess the role of maternity unit characteristics on obstetric intervention rates among low-risk women in France. METHODS: Data on low-risk deliveries came from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey of a representative sample of births (n = 9,530). The maternity unit characteristics studied were size, level of care, and private or public status; the interventions included induction of labor; cesarean section; operative vaginal delivery (forceps, spatulas or vacuum); and episiotomy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were adjusted for maternal confounding factors, gestational age, and infant birthweight. RESULTS: The rates of induction, cesarean section, operative delivery, and episiotomy in this low-risk population were 23.9 percent, 10.1 percent, 15.2 percent, and 19.6 percent, respectively, and 52.0 percent of deliveries included at least one of them. Unit size was unrelated to any intervention except operative delivery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96) for units with >3,000 deliveries per year vs units with <1,000). The rate of every intervention was higher in private units, and the aOR for any intervention was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.59-2.08). After adjustment for maternal characteristics and facility size and status, significant variations in the use of interventions remained between units, especially for episiotomies. Results for level of care were similar to those for unit size. CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of births in large maternity units in France is not associated with higher rates of interventions for low-risk births. The situation in private units could be explained by differences in the organization of care. Additional research should explore the differences in practices between maternity units with similar characteristics.
BACKGROUND: In many countries the closure of small maternity units has raised concerns about how the concentration of low-risk pregnancies in large specialized units might affect the management of childbirth. We aimed to assess the role of maternity unit characteristics on obstetric intervention rates among low-risk women in France. METHODS: Data on low-risk deliveries came from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey of a representative sample of births (n = 9,530). The maternity unit characteristics studied were size, level of care, and private or public status; the interventions included induction of labor; cesarean section; operative vaginal delivery (forceps, spatulas or vacuum); and episiotomy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were adjusted for maternal confounding factors, gestational age, and infant birthweight. RESULTS: The rates of induction, cesarean section, operative delivery, and episiotomy in this low-risk population were 23.9 percent, 10.1 percent, 15.2 percent, and 19.6 percent, respectively, and 52.0 percent of deliveries included at least one of them. Unit size was unrelated to any intervention except operative delivery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.10-1.96) for units with >3,000 deliveries per year vs units with <1,000). The rate of every intervention was higher in private units, and the aOR for any intervention was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.59-2.08). After adjustment for maternal characteristics and facility size and status, significant variations in the use of interventions remained between units, especially for episiotomies. Results for level of care were similar to those for unit size. CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of births in large maternity units in France is not associated with higher rates of interventions for low-risk births. The situation in private units could be explained by differences in the organization of care. Additional research should explore the differences in practices between maternity units with similar characteristics.
Authors: Sally K Tracy; Alec Welsh; Bev Hall; Donna Hartz; Anne Lainchbury; Andrew Bisits; Jan White; Mark B Tracy Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Jennifer E Lutomski; Michael Murphy; Declan Devane; Sarah Meaney; Richard A Greene Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Ilir Hoxha; Lamprini Syrogiannouli; Xhyljeta Luta; Kali Tal; David C Goodman; Bruno R da Costa; Peter Jüni Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sonia Duarte de Azevedo Bittencourt; Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues; Lenice Gnocchi da Costa Reis; Márcia Melo Ramos; Maria do Carmo Leal Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Rachel E Rowe; John Townend; Peter Brocklehurst; Marian Knight; Alison Macfarlane; Christine McCourt; Mary Newburn; Maggie Redshaw; Jane Sandall; Louise Silverton; Jennifer Hollowell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marie Delnord; Béatrice Blondel; Nicolas Drewniak; Kari Klungsøyr; Francisco Bolumar; Ashna Mohangoo; Mika Gissler; Katarzyna Szamotulska; Nicholas Lack; Jan Nijhuis; Petr Velebil; Luule Sakkeus; James Chalmers; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 3.007