Nonclinical Parameters Affecting Primary Cesarean Rates in the United States

Abstract

Objective Cesarean is the single most common operation in United States and has reached epidemic proportions in recent decades. Our objective was to study the effect of nonclinical parameters on primary cesarean rates in a large contemporary population.

Study Design We designed a retrospective multicenter study using data obtained from electronic medical records from 19 U.S. hospitals between 2005 and 2007 (Consortium on Safe Labor Database), which included 145,764 term, singleton, nonanomalous, vertex, live births that included labor. The impact of nonclinical parameters (patient and provider characteristics, time of delivery, institutional policies, and insurance type) was investigated using modified Poisson regression methodology and classification and regression tree analysis.

Results There were 125,517 vaginal and 20,247 cesarean deliveries. Using the multivariable model, the nonclinical parameters with statistical significance for primary cesarean were delivery during evening hours, a male provider, public insurance, and nonwhite race (p < 0.001).

Conclusions Cesarean rates are associated with several nonclinical factors. Further investigation into these factors might help to develop strategies to reduce their influence and hence the rates of cesarean.

Keywords

cesarean section rates - nonclinical factors - physician factors

• References

• 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. teen birth rate hits record low in 2009, CDC report finds. Press release. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101221.html . Released December 21, 2010
• 2 Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, Lawrence WL. A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 751-756
• 3 Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 29-38
• 4 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1279-1295
• 5 Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: e1-e8
• 6 Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA 2012; 307: 491-497
• 7 Kominiarek MA, Vanveldhuisen P, Hibbard J , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. The maternal body mass index: a strong association with delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: e1-e7
• 8 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD , et al. Births: final data for 2006. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf
• 9 Hueston WJ, Applegate JA, Mansfield CJ, King DE, McClaflin RR. Practice variations between family physicians and obstetricians in the management of low-risk pregnancies. J Fam Pract 1995; 40: 345-351
• 10 Fabri RH, Murta EF. Socioeconomic factors and cesarean section rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 76: 87-88
• 11 Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BW. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population-based cross sectional study. BJOG 2003; 110: 106-111
• 12 Goyert GL, Bottoms SF, Treadwell MC, Nehra PC. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 706-709
• 13 Homer CS, Davis GK, Brodie PM , et al. Collaboration in maternity care: a randomised controlled trial comparing community-based continuity of care with standard hospital care. BJOG 2001; 108: 16-22
• 14 Hueston WJ, Lewis-Stevenson S. Provider distribution and variations in statewide cesarean section rates. J Community Health 2001; 26: 1-10
• 15 Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (6) CD005528
• 16 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: e1-e10
• 17 Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159: 702-706
• 18 Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 233-239
• 19 Mitler LK, Rizzo JA, Horwitz SM. Physician gender and cesarean sections. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1030-1035
• 20 Liu TC, Lin HC, Chen CS, Lee HC. Obstetrician gender and the likelihood of performing a maternal request for a cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136: 46-52
• 21 Gretz H, Bradley WH, Zakashansky K , et al. Effect of physician gender and specialty on utilization of hysterectomy in New York, 2001–2005. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: e1-e6
• 22 Webb DA, Culhane J. Time of day variation in rates of obstetric intervention to assist in vaginal delivery. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 577-578
• 23 Heller G, Misselwitz B, Schmidt S. Early neonatal mortality, asphyxia related deaths, and timing of low risk births in Hesse, Germany, 1990–8: observational study. BMJ 2000; 321: 274-275
• 24 Burns LR, Geller SE, Wholey DR. The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision. Med Care 1995; 33: 365-382
• 25 Abenhaim HA, Benjamin A, Koby RD, Kinch RA, Kramer MS. Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians. CMAJ 2007; 177: 352-356