Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1992 Feb;82(2):257–261. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.2.257

Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates.

R Bertollini 1, D DiLallo 1, T Spadea 1, C Perucci 1
PMCID: PMC1694300  PMID: 1739159

Abstract

The study, based on birth certificate data from 1985 through 1987, investigated cesarean section (CS) rates in the Lazio region of Italy and their relationship with mode of hospital care payment. Use of abdominal delivery increased from 22.3% in 1985 to 24.3% in 1987. CS rates were highest (34.7%) in private hospitals. A marked variation in the use of CS was associated with mode of hospital care payment independently from other predictors of abdominal delivery.

Full text

PDF
257

Selected References

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

  1. Barrett J. F., Jarvis G. J., Macdonald H. N., Buchan P. C., Tyrrell S. N., Lilford R. J. Inconsistencies in clinical decisions in obstetrics. Lancet. 1990 Sep 1;336(8714):549–551. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92097-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertollini R., Di Lallo D., Rapiti E., Perucci C. A. Cesarean section rates in Italy. Am J Public Health. 1987 Dec;77(12):1554–1554. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.12.1554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DeMott R. K., Sandmire H. F. The Green Bay cesarean section study. I. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jun;162(6):1593–1602. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(90)90925-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fraser W., Usher R. H., McLean F. H., Bossenberry C., Thomson M. E., Kramer M. S., Smith L. P., Power H. Temporal variation in rates of cesarean section for dystocia: does "convenience" play a role? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Feb;156(2):300–304. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90272-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gould J. B., Davey B., Stafford R. S. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1989 Jul 27;321(4):233–239. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198907273210406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goyert G. L., Bottoms S. F., Treadwell M. C., Nehra P. C. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med. 1989 Mar 16;320(11):706–709. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198903163201106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. MANTEL N., HAENSZEL W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719–748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mann L. I., Gallant J. Modern indications for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979 Oct 15;135(4):437–441. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(79)90426-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Miettinen O. Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1976 Feb;103(2):226–235. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Myers S. A., Gleicher N. 1988 U.S. cesarean-section rate: good news or bad? N Engl J Med. 1990 Jul 19;323(3):200–200. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199007193230316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Notzon F. C. International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. JAMA. 1990 Jun 27;263(24):3286–3291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Notzon F. C., Placek P. J., Taffel S. M. Comparisons of national cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 12;316(7):386–389. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198702123160706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rodrigues J. Urban hospital cesarean section delivery rates in Paraíba State, Brazil, 1977-81. Am J Public Health. 1988 Jun;78(6):704–705. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.6.704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rutkow I. M. Obstetric and gynecologic operations in the United States, 1979 to 1984. Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Jun;67(6):755–759. doi: 10.1097/00006250-198606000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stafford R. S. Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health. 1990 Mar;80(3):313–315. doi: 10.2105/ajph.80.3.313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stafford R. S. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA. 1991 Jan 2;265(1):59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Taffel S. M., Placek P. J., Liss T. Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. Am J Public Health. 1987 Aug;77(8):955–959. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.8.955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Taffel S. M., Placek P. J., Moien M. 1988 U.S. cesarean-section rate at 24.7 per 100 births--a plateau? N Engl J Med. 1990 Jul 19;323(3):199–200. doi: 10.1056/nejm199007193230315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. de Regt R. H., Minkoff H. L., Feldman J., Schwarz R. H. Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 4;315(10):619–624. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198609043151005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES