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
[41]   EFFECT OF CHANGES IN MATERNAL AGE, PARITY, AND BIRTH-WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ON PRIMARY CESAREAN DELIVERY RATES [J].
PARRISH, KM ;
HOLT, VL ;
EASTERLING, TR ;
CONNELL, FA ;
LOGERFO, JP .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 271 (06) :443-447
[42]   Clinical, provider and sociodemographic determinants of the number of antenatal visits in England and Wales [J].
Petrou, S ;
Kupek, E ;
Vause, S ;
Maresh, M .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2001, 52 (07) :1123-1134
[43]   Maternity hospitals ranking on prophylactic caesarean section rates:: uncertainty associated with ranks [J].
Rabilloud, M ;
Ecochard, R ;
Estève, J .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2001, 94 (01) :139-144
[44]   Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates [J].
Robson, MS ;
Scudamore, IW ;
Walsh, SM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 174 (01) :199-205
[45]  
ROBSON MS, 1997, LABOR WARD AUDIT, P559
[46]   Risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates for managed care plans in New York State, 1998. [J].
Roohan P.J. ;
Josberger R.E. ;
Gesten F.C. .
Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2001, 5 (3) :169-177
[47]   Pulmonary embolism and stroke in relation to pregnancy: How can high-risk women be identified? [J].
Ros, HS ;
Lichtenstein, P ;
Bellocco, R ;
Petersson, G ;
Cnattingius, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 186 (02) :198-203
[48]   Is there an incremental rise in the risk of obstetric intervention with increasing maternal age? [J].
Rosenthal, AN ;
Paterson-Brown, S .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1998, 105 (10) :1064-1069
[49]  
*ROYAL COLL OBST G, 2001, US EL FET MON US INT
[50]  
*ROYAL COLL OBST G, 2001, 9 ROYAL COLL OBST GY