Literature DB >> 29233843

Cesarean delivery rates among family physicians versus obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using instrumental variable methods.

Russell Eric Dawe1, Jessica Bishop1, Amanda Pendergast1, Susan Avery1, Kelly Monaghan1, Norah Duggan1, Kris Aubrey-Bassler1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that family physicians have rates of cesarean delivery that are lower than or equivalent to those for obstetricians, but adjustments for risk differences in these analyses may have been inadequate. We used an econometric method to adjust for observed and unobserved factors affecting the risk of cesarean delivery among women attended by family physicians versus obstetricians.
METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study included all Canadian (except Quebec) hospital deliveries by family physicians and obstetricians between Apr. 1, 2006, and Mar. 31, 2009. We excluded women with multiple gestations, and newborns with a birth weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 20 weeks. We estimated the relative risk of cesarean delivery using instrumental-variable-adjusted and logistic regression.
RESULTS: The final cohort included 776 299 women who gave birth in 390 hospitals. The risk of cesarean delivery was 27.3%, and the mean proportion of deliveries by family physicians was 26.9% (standard deviation 23.8%). The relative risk of cesarean delivery for family physicians versus obstetricians was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.56) with logistic regression and 1.27 (95% CI 1.02-1.57) with instrumental-variable-adjusted regression.
INTERPRETATION: Our conventional analyses suggest that family physicians have a lower rate of cesarean delivery than obstetricians, but instrumental variable analyses suggest the opposite. Because instrumental variable methods adjust for unmeasured factors and traditional methods do not, the large discrepancy between these estimates of risk suggests that clinical and/or sociocultural factors affecting the decision to perform cesarean delivery may not be accounted for in our database. Copyright 2017, Joule Inc. or its licensors.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 29233843      PMCID: PMC5741417          DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20170081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ Open        ISSN: 2291-0026


  24 in total

1.  The relation between the availability of neonatal intensive care and neonatal mortality.

Authors:  David C Goodman; Elliott S Fisher; George A Little; Thérèse A Stukel; Chiang-hua Chang; Kenneth S Schoendorf
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-16       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Catherine Deneux-Tharaux; Elodie Carmona; Marie-Hélene Bouvier-Colle; Gérard Bréart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Appropriate technology for birth.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-08-24       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Amniotic-fluid embolism and medical induction of labour: a retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Michael S Kramer; Jocelyn Rouleau; Thomas F Baskett; K S Joseph
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-10-21       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Low-Risk Deliveries: A Comparison of Midwives, Family Physicians and Obstetricians.

Authors:  Dylan Walters; Archna Gupta; Austin E Nam; Jennifer Lake; Frank Martino; Peter C Coyte
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2015-08

6.  Maternal outcomes of cesarean sections: do generalists' patients have different outcomes than specialists' patients?

Authors:  Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Sarah Newbery; Len Kelly; Bruce Weaver; Scott Wilson
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Outcomes of deliveries by family physicians or obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using an instrumental variable.

Authors:  Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Richard M Cullen; Alvin Simms; Shabnam Asghari; Joan Crane; Peizhong Peter Wang; Marshall Godwin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Investigation of an increase in postpartum haemorrhage in Canada.

Authors:  K S Joseph; J Rouleau; M S Kramer; D C Young; R M Liston; T F Baskett
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants.

Authors:  Ciaran S Phibbs; Laurence C Baker; Aaron B Caughey; Beate Danielsen; Susan K Schmitt; Roderic H Phibbs
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Is attending birth dying out? Trends in obstetric care provision among primary care physicians in British Columbia.

Authors:  Lindsay Hedden; Sarah Munro; Kimberlyn M McGrail; Michael R Law; Ivy L Bourgeault; Morris L Barer
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.275

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.