Literature DB >> 3967160

Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies?

G M Anderson, J Lomas.   

Abstract

Using overall rates of cesarean section and either rates of diagnosis or rates of cesarean section for the four main indications for this procedure, we analysed the variations among teaching and community hospitals in four of Ontario's six regions. The rates varied substantially in both 1979 and 1982, with the overall rate for cesarean section in 1982 being 17.1 to 21.0 per 100 deliveries in the teaching hospitals and 16.5 to 19.7 in the community hospitals. The rate of diagnosis of dystocia varied up to threefold in the teaching hospitals and up to twofold in the community hospitals. Fetal distress was diagnosed at even more variables rates. The rate of repeat cesarean section varied most in the teaching hospitals, whereas the rate of cesarean section for breech presentation varied significantly in the community and the teaching hospitals in 1982 but only in the community hospitals in 1979. Nearly all the rates increased between 1979 and 1982. Differences in patient characteristics and in availability of resources appeared less important in explaining these rate variations than differences in clinical policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3967160      PMCID: PMC1346706     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Med Assoc J        ISSN: 0008-4409            Impact factor:   8.262


  20 in total

1.  Small area variations in health care delivery.

Authors:  J Wennberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-12-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Antenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  B J Culliton; W K Waterfall
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-12-08

3.  Cesarean section: what is an acceptable rate?

Authors:  T F Baskett
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1978-05-06       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  The increase in the cesarean birth rate.

Authors:  S F Bottoms; M G Rosen; R J Sokol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Cesarean section: trends and morbidity.

Authors:  T F Baskett; R M McMillen
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1981-10-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  High and low surgical rates: risk factors for area residents.

Authors:  N P Roos; L L Roos
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  The rising cesarean section rate: can it safely be reversed?

Authors:  H L Minkoff; R H Schwarz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases.

Authors:  J V Collea; C Chein; E J Quilligan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-05-15       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Evaluation of elective repeat cesarean section as a standard of care: an application of decision analysis.

Authors:  K K Shy; J P LoGerfo; L E Karp
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-01-15       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  An assessment of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labor. A randomized trial.

Authors:  I M Kelso; R J Parsons; G F Lawrence; S S Arora; D K Edmonds; I D Cooke
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1978-07-01       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  10 in total

1.  Explaining source of payment differences in U.S. cesarean rates: why do privately insured mothers receive more cesareans than mothers who are not privately insured?

Authors:  Darren Grant
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2005-02

2.  Influence of perinatal asphyxia on neurologic outcome: consequences for family practice accoucheurs.

Authors:  M Klein; J L Reynolds
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  The consensus process and evidence dissemination.

Authors:  J Lomas
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1986-06-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Holding back the tide of caesareans.

Authors:  J Lomas
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-09-03

5.  Variations in surgical rates in Quebec: does access to teaching hospitals make a difference?

Authors:  R Blais
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Factors influencing the practice of vaginal birth after cesarean section.

Authors:  G Goldman; R Pineault; L Potvin; R Blais; H Bilodeau
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women.

Authors:  R A Rosenblatt; S A Dobie; L G Hart; R Schneeweiss; D Gould; T R Raine; T J Benedetti; M J Pirani; E B Perrin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Charges for comprehensive obstetric care at teaching and nonteaching hospitals. A comparison.

Authors:  G S Gordon; S E Sefcik; J P Lo Gerfo
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1991-12

9.  Intention for Cesarean Section Versus Vaginal Delivery Among Pregnant Women in Isfahan: Correlates and Determinants.

Authors:  Zahra Shams-Ghahfarokhi; Farideh Khalajabadi-Farahani
Journal:  J Reprod Infertil       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

Review 10.  Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad Rafiei; Marzieh Saei Ghare; Malihe Akbari; Faezeh Kiani; Fatemeh Sayehmiri; Koroush Sayehmiri; Reza Vafaee
Journal:  Int J Reprod Biomed       Date:  2018-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.