Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2000 Aug;54(8):631–636. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.8.631

Inter-hospital variations in caesarean sections. A risk adjusted comparison in the Valencia public hospitals

J Librero 1, S Peiro 1, S M Calderon 1
PMCID: PMC1731728  PMID: 10890876

Abstract

BACKGROUND—The aim of this study was to describe the variability in caesarean rates in the public hospitals in the Valencia Region, Spain, and to analyse the association between caesarean sections and clinical and extra-clinical factors.
METHODS—Analysis of data contained in the Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS) compiled for all births in 11 public hospitals in Valencia during 1994-1995 (n=36 819). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the association between caesarean section rates and specific risk factors. The multivariate model was used to construct predictions about caesarean rates for each hospital, for comparison with rates observed.
RESULTS—Caesarean rates were 17.6% (inter-hospital range: 14.7% to 25.0%), with ample variability between hospitals in the diagnosis of maternal-fetal risk factors (particularly dystocia and fetal distress), and the indication for caesarean in the presence of these factors. Multivariate analysis showed that maternal-fetal risk factors correlated strongly with caesarean section, although extra-clinical factors, such as the day of the week, also correlated positively. After adjusting for the risk factors, the inter-hospital variation in caesarean rates persisted.
CONCLUSIONS—Although certain limitations (imprecision of some diagnoses and information biases in the MBDS) make it impossible to establish unequivocal conclusions, results show a high degree of variability among hospitals when opting for caesarean section. This variability cannot be justified by differences in obstetric risks.


Keywords: hospital utilisation; medical practice variation; caesarean section; administrative databases

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (133.4 KB).

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. Atiba E. O., Adeghe A. J., Murphy P. J., Felmingham J. E., Scott G. I. Patients' expectation and caesarean section rate. Lancet. 1993 Jan 23;341(8839):246–246. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)90111-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldwin L. M., Hart L. G., Lloyd M., Fordyce M., Rosenblatt R. A. Defensive medicine and obstetrics. JAMA. 1995 Nov 22;274(20):1606–1610. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertollini R., DiLallo D., Spadea T., Perucci C. Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates. Am J Public Health. 1992 Feb;82(2):257–261. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.2.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Francome C., Savage W. Caesarean section in Britain and the United States 12% or 24%: is either the right rate? Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1199–1218. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90332-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hemminki E. Long term maternal health effects of caesarean section. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991 Mar;45(1):24–28. doi: 10.1136/jech.45.1.24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Henry O. A., Gregory K. D., Hobel C. J., Platt L. D. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. Am J Public Health. 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt 1):1143–1146. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.8_pt_1.1143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hosmer D. W., Lemeshow S. Confidence interval estimates of an index of quality performance based on logistic regression models. Stat Med. 1995 Oct 15;14(19):2161–2172. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Joffe M., Chapple J., Paterson C., Beard R. W. What is the optimal caesarean section rate? An outcome based study of existing variation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994 Aug;48(4):406–411. doi: 10.1136/jech.48.4.406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keeler E. B., Brodie M. Economic incentives in the choice between vaginal delivery and cesarean section. Milbank Q. 1993;71(3):365–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. King D. E., Lahiri K. Socioeconomic factors and the odds of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. JAMA. 1994 Aug 17;272(7):524–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Leyland A. The effect of previous cesarean sections on current cesarean rates. Am J Public Health. 1993 Jan;83(1):115–117. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.1.115-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Librero J., Peiró S., Ordiñana R. Chronic comorbidity and outcomes of hospital care: length of stay, mortality, and readmission at 30 and 365 days. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Mar;52(3):171–179. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00160-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Localio A. R., Lawthers A. G., Bengtson J. M., Hebert L. E., Weaver S. L., Brennan T. A., Landis J. R. Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. JAMA. 1993 Jan 20;269(3):366–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McKenzie L., Stephenson P. A. Variation in cesarean section rates among hospitals in Washington State. Am J Public Health. 1993 Aug;83(8):1109–1112. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.8.1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mutryn C. S. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1271–1281. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90338-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Notzon F. C. International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. JAMA. 1990 Jun 27;263(24):3286–3291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Oleske D. M., Glandon G. L., Giacomelli G. J., Hohmann S. F. The cesarean birth rate: influence of hospital teaching status. Health Serv Res. 1991 Aug;26(3):325–337. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Porreco R. P., Thorp J. A. The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):369–374. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70148-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rock S. M. Variability and consistency of rates of primary and repeat cesarean sections among hospitals in two states. Public Health Rep. 1993 Jul-Aug;108(4):514–516. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sarría Santamera A., Sendra Gutiérrez J. M. Evolución de la tasa de cesáreas en España: 1984-1988. Gac Sanit. 1994 Sep-Oct;8(44):209–214. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(94)71194-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sheehan K. H. Caesarean section for dystocia: a comparison of practices in two countries. Lancet. 1987 Mar 7;1(8532):548–551. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)90185-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stephenson P. A., Bakoula C., Hemminki E., Knudsen L., Levasseur M., Schenker J., Stembera Z., Tiba J., Verbrugge H. P., Zupan J. Patterns of use of obstetrical interventions in 12 countries. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1993 Jan;7(1):45–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.1993.tb00600.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Treffers P. E., Pel M. The rising trend for caesarean birth. BMJ. 1993 Oct 23;307(6911):1017–1018. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6911.1017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Variabilidad en la práctica de cesáreas. Gac Sanit. 1995 Jan-Feb;9(46):62–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES