Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1985 Feb 1;132(3):253-6, 259.

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

G M Anderson, J Lomas
PMCID: PMC1346706  PMID: 3967160

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.

Full text

PDF

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson G. M., Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med. 1984 Oct 4;311(14):887–892. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198410043111405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baskett T. F. Cesarean section: what is an acceptable rate? Can Med Assoc J. 1978 May 6;118(9):1019–1020. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baskett T. F., McMillen R. M. Cesarean section: trends and morbidity. Can Med Assoc J. 1981 Oct 1;125(7):723–726. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bottoms S. F., Rosen M. G., Sokol R. J. The increase in the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med. 1980 Mar 6;302(10):559–563. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198003063021006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Collea J. V., Chein C., Quilligan E. J. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980 May 15;137(2):235–244. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(80)90780-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Culliton B. J., Waterfall W. K. Antenatal diagnosis. Br Med J. 1979 Dec 8;2(6203):1488–1489. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6203.1488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Daikoku N. H., Kaltreider D. F., Khouzami V. A., Spence M., Johnson J. W. Premature rupture of membranes and spontaneous preterm labor: maternal endometritis risks. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Jan;59(1):13–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eddy D. M. Clinical policies and the quality of clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 1982 Aug 5;307(6):343–347. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198208053070604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gellman E., Goldstein M. S., Kaplan S., Shapiro W. J. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section. Experience in private practice. JAMA. 1983 Jun 3;249(21):2935–2937. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Huchcroft S. A., Wearing M. P., Buck C. W. Late results of cesarean and vaginal delivery in cases of breech presentation. Can Med Assoc J. 1981 Oct 1;125(7):726–730. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kelso I. M., Parsons R. J., Lawrence G. F., Arora S. S., Edmonds D. K., Cooke I. D. An assessment of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labor. A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jul 1;131(5):526–532. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(78)90114-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McPherson K., Wennberg J. E., Hovind O. B., Clifford P. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982 Nov 18;307(21):1310–1314. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198211183072104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Minkoff H. L., Schwarz R. H. The rising cesarean section rate: can it safely be reversed? Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Aug;56(2):135–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Roos N. P., Roos L. L. High and low surgical rates: risk factors for area residents. Am J Public Health. 1981 Jun;71(6):591–600. doi: 10.2105/ajph.71.6.591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shy K. K., LoGerfo J. P., Karp L. E. Evaluation of elective repeat cesarean section as a standard of care: an application of decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Jan 15;139(2):123–129. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(81)90432-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Vayda E., Barnsley J. M., Mindell W. R., Cardillo B. Five-year study of surgical rates in Ontario's counties. Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Jul 15;131(2):111–115. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vayda E., Mindell W. R., Rutkow I. M. A decade of surgery in Canada, England and Wales, and the United States. Arch Surg. 1982 Jun;117(6):846–853. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1982.01380300086019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wadhera S., Nair C. Trends in cesarean section deliveries, Canada, 1968-1977. Can J Public Health. 1982 Jan-Feb;73(1):47–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wennberg J., Gittelsohn Small area variations in health care delivery. Science. 1973 Dec 14;182(4117):1102–1108. doi: 10.1126/science.182.4117.1102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Williams R. L., Chen P. M. Controlling the rise in cesarean section rates by the dissemination of information from vital records. Am J Public Health. 1983 Aug;73(8):863–867. doi: 10.2105/ajph.73.8.863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES