How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences?

被引:39
作者
Paranjothy, S
Frost, C
Thomas, J
机构
[1] Natl Collaborating Ctr Womens & Childrens Hlth, London NW1 4RG, England
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Med Stat Unit, London WC1, England
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00501.x
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective To quantify the amount of variation in caesarean section (CS) rates between maternity units explained by case mix differences. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting All 216 maternity units in England and Wales. Population Women giving birth at these maternity units between May and July 2000. Methods Logistic regression models were developed to investigate the relationship between case mix characteristics, and odds of (i) CS before labour, (ii) CS in labour. Using these results, overall CS rates standardised for case mix were calculated for each maternity unit. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to examine heterogeneity between maternity units. Main outcome measures CS before labour and CS during labour. Results Adjustment for case mix differences between maternity units explained 34% of the variance in CS rates. Odds of CS (before and in labour) increased with maternal age. Women from ethnic minority groups had lower odds of CS before labour, and increased odds of CS in labour. Women with a previous vaginal delivery had lower odds of CS, although the magnitude of this for CS before and in labour is markedly different. Conclusions Case mix adjustment is important to enable understanding of the factors that influence the CS rate. These include organisational and staffing levels as well as women's preferences for childbirth and clinician's attitudes. An understanding of how these factors influence the CS rate is essential for evaluation of quality and appropriateness of obstetric care provided to women.
引用
收藏
页码:658 / 666
页数:9
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   DETERMINANTS OF THE INCREASING CESAREAN BIRTH-RATE - ONTARIO DATA 1979 TO 1982 [J].
ANDERSON, GM ;
LOMAS, J .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1984, 311 (14) :887-892
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2004, CAES SECT CLIN GUID
[3]  
[Anonymous], NHS MAT STAT ENGL 19
[4]   Impact of risk-adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance [J].
Aron, DC ;
Harper, DL ;
Shepardson, LB ;
Rosenthal, GE .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (24) :1968-1972
[5]   Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates [J].
Bailit, JL ;
Dooley, SL ;
Peaceman, AN .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 93 (06) :1025-1030
[6]   RACIAL ETHNIC-DIFFERENCES IN THE LIKELIHOOD OF CESAREAN DELIVERY, CALIFORNIA [J].
BRAVEMAN, P ;
EGERTER, S ;
EDMONSTON, F ;
VERDON, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1995, 85 (05) :625-630
[7]  
Chaim W, 2000, Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol, V8, P77, DOI 10.1155/S1064744900000053
[8]   The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care [J].
Cleary, R ;
Beard, RW ;
Chapple, J ;
Coles, J ;
Griffin, M ;
Joffe, M ;
Welch, A .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1996, 103 (03) :223-229
[9]  
Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy, 1999, 8 MAT CHILD HLTH RES
[10]   Long term outcome by method of delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: Population based follow up [J].
Danielian, PJ ;
Wang, J ;
Hall, MH .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 312 (7044) :1451-1453