Women's Health Issues
Volume 14, Issue 3 , Pages 94-103 , May 2004

The relationship of health care delivery system characteristics and legal factors to mode of delivery in women with prior cesarean section: a systematic review

  • Dale F. Kraemer, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Dale F. Kraemer, PhD, Departments of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Road, Mailcode: BICC, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.
    • ,
  • Michelle Berlin, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Department of Evidence-Based Practice Center, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • ,
  • Jeanne-Marie Guise, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Department of Evidence-Based Practice Center, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA

Received 6 August 2003 ,Revised 20 February 2004 ,Accepted 8 April 2004.

References 

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2000). Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Cesarean Delivery, 1–59
  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2002, May 6). Nation's obstetrical care endangered by growing liability insurance crisis. ACOG Press Release. Retrieved June 16, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr05-06-02-1.cfm
  3. Bailit JL, Garrett JM, Miller WC, McMahon MJ, Cefalo RC. Hospital primary cesarean delivery rates and the risk of poor neonatal outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;187(3):721–727
  4. Barnsley JM, Vayda E, Lomas J, Enkin MW, Pierre KD, Anderson GM, et al.  Cesarean section in Ontario (practice patterns and responses to hypothetical cases). Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1990;33(2):128–132
  5. Berkowitz GS, Fiarman GS, Mojica MA, Bauman J, de Regt RH. Effect of physician characteristics on the cesarean birth rate. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1989;161(1):146–149
  6. Bickell NA, Zdeb MS, Applegate MS, Roohan PJ, Sui AL. Effect of external peer review on cesarean delivery rates (a statewide program). Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1996;87(5 Pt 1):664–667
  7. Chambliss LR, Daly C, Medearis AL, Ames M, Kayne M, Paul R. The role of selection bias in comparing cesarean birth rates between physician and midwifery management. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1992;80(2):161–165
  8. Coco AS, Gates TJ, Gallagher ME, Horst MA. Association of attending physician specialty with the cesarean delivery rate in the same patient population. Family Medicine. 2000;32(9):639–644
  9. Coulter CH, Lehrfeld R. When push comes to shove (implementing VBAC practice guidelines). Physician Executive. 1995;21(6):30–35
  10. Curtin SC, Kozak LJ. Cesarean delivery rates in 1995 continue to decline in the United States. Birth. 1997;24(3):194–196
  11. Davis LG, Riedmann GL, Sapiro M, Minogue JP, Kazer RR. Cesarean section rates in low-risk private patients managed by certified nurse-midwives and obstetricians. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1994;39(2):91–97
  12. Deutchman ME, Sills D, Connor PD. Perinatal outcomes (a comparison between family physicians and obstetricians). Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 1995;8(6):440–447
  13. Goldman G, Pineault R, Bilodeau H, Blais R. Effects of patient, physician and hospital characteristics on the likelihood of vaginal birth after previous cesarean section in Quebec. CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). 1990;143(10):1017–1024
  14. Goldman G, Pineault R, Potvin L, Blais R, Bilodeau H. Factors influencing the practice of vaginal birth after cesarean section. American Journal of Public Health. 1993;83(8):1104–1108
  15. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Cane P, Platt LD, Kahn K. Vaginal birth after cesarean and uterine rupture rates in California. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;94(6):985–989
  16. Gregory KD, Ramicone E, Chan L, Kahn KL. Cesarean deliveries for Medicaid patients (a comparison in public and private hospitals in Los Angeles county). American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;180(5):1177–1184
  17. Guise, J., McDonagh, M., Hashima, J., Kraemer, D., Eden, K., Berlin, M., et al. (2003). Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment (prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-Based Practice Center under contract no. 290-97-0018). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publication
  18. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Births (preliminary data for 2002). National Vital Statistics Reports. 2003;51:1–20
  19. Hangsleben KL, Taylor MA, Lynn NM. VBAC program in a nurse-midwifery service. Five years of experience. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1989;34(4):179–184
  20. Harrington LC, Miller DA, McClain CJ, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean in a hospital-based birth center staffed by certified nurse-midwives. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1997;42(4):304–307
  21. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al.  Methods of the third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(Suppl.):21–35
  22. Hueston WJ. Obstetric referral in family practice. Factors Affecting Cesarean Section (FACS) Study Group. Journal of Family Practice. 1994;38(4):368–372
  23. Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Differences in labor and delivery experience in family physician- and obstetrician-supervised teaching services. Family Medicine. 1995;27(3):182–187
  24. Iglesias S, Burn R, Saunders LD. Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital. CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). 1991;145(11):1459–1464
  25. Khan, K., Riet, G., Popay, J., Nixon, J., Kleijnen, J. (2001). Study quality assessment. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001
  26. King DE, Lahiri K. Socioeconomic factors and the odds of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272(7):524–529
  27. Kumar S, Maouris P. Induction of labour for trial of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a remote district hospital. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1996;36(4):417–420
  28. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1998;92(1):1–7
  29. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, Vayda E, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. New England Journal of Medicine. 1989;321(19):1306–1311
  30. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1991;265(17):2202–2207
  31. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;345(1):3–8
  32. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Park MM. Births (final data for 2000). National Vital Statistics Reports. 2002;50(5):1–101
  33. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996;335(10):689–695
  34. Menacker F, Curtin SC. Trends in cesarean birth and vaginal birth after previous cesarean, 1991–99. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49(13):1–16
  35. Miller ES, Partezana J, Montgomery RL. Vaginal birth after cesarean (a 5-year experience in a family practice residency program). Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 1995;8(5):357–360
  36. Miller M, Leader LR. Vaginal delivery after caesarean section. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1992;32(3):213–216
  37. Mor-Yosef S, Zeevi D, Samueloff A, Donhin M, Frankfurter H, Schenker JG. Vaginal delivery following one previous cesarean birth (nation wide survey). Asia-Oceania Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1990;16(1):33–37
  38. Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. New England Journal of Medicine. 1988;319(23):1511–1516
  39. Myers SA, Gleicher N. The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program (an update after 6 years). Social Science & Medicine. 1993;37(10):1219–1222
  40. National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. (1981). Cesarean Childbirth: Report of a Consensus Development Conference Sponsored by the NICHD in Conjunction with the National Center for Health Care Technology and Assisted by the Office for Medical Applications of Research. NIH Publication, 82-2067
  41. Oleske DM, Linn ES, Nachman KL, Marder RJ, Thompson LD. Cesarean and VBAC delivery rates in Medicaid managed care, Medicaid fee-for-service, and private managed care. Birth. 1998;25(2):125–127
  42. Paterson CM, Saunders NJ. Mode of delivery after one caesarean section (audit of current practice in a health region). British Medical Journal. 1991;303(6806):818–821
  43. Placek PJ, Taffel SM. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in the 1980s. American Journal of Public Health. 1988;78(5):512–515
  44. Porreco RP. High cesarean section rate (a new perspective). Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1985;65(3):307–311
  45. Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean (a risk evaluation. Swiss Working Group of Obstetric and Gynecologic Institutions). Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;93(3):332–337
  46. Raynor BD. The experience with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in a small rural community practice. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1993;168(1 Pt 1):60–62
  47. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Peterson HB, Martinez-Schnell B, Thompson RJ. Reducing cesarean sections at a teaching hospital. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1990;163(3):1081–1087 (discussion 1087–1088)
  48. Santerre RE. The effect of the ACOG guideline on vaginal births after cesarean. Medical Care Research & Review. 1996;53(3):315–329
  49. Schimmel LM, Hogan P, Boehler B, DiFelice M, Cooney A, Schimmel LD. The Yolo County Midwifery Service. A descriptive study of 496 singleton birth outcomes, 1990. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1992;37(6):398–403
  50. Shiono PH, Fielden JG, McNellis D, Rhoads GG, Pearse WH. Recent trends in cesarean birth and trial of labor rates in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1987;257(4):494–497
  51. Sieck CC. Vaginal birth after cesarean section (a comparison of rural and metropolitan rates in Oklahoma). Journal—Oklahoma State Medical Association. 1997;90(8):444–449
  52. Sinusas K. Deliveries by family physicians in Connecticut (results of a practice-based research network). Archives of Family Medicine. 2000;9(5):434–438
  53. Skelton AG. The relationship among cost, quality, and competition (an analysis of obstetrics services in Missouri hospitals). Journal of Health Care Finance. 1997;24(1):30–44
  54. Smith GCS, Pell JP, Cameron AD, Dobbie R. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287(20):2684–2690
  55. Stafford RS. Cesarean section use and source of payment (an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts). American Journal of Public Health. 1990;80(3):313–315
  56. Stafford RS. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1991;265(1):59–63
  57. Stone SE, Brown MP, Westcott JP. Nurse-midwifery service in a rural setting. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 1996;41(5):377–382
  58. Studnicki J, Remmel R, Campbell R, Werner DC. The impact of legislatively imposed practice guidelines on cesarean section rates (the Florida experience). American Journal of Medical Quality. 1997;12(1):62–68
  59. Wagner CL, Metts AK. Rates of successful vaginal delivery after cesarean for patients with private versus public insurance. Journal of Perinatology. 1999;19(1):14–18
  60. Walton DL, Ludlow D, Willis DC. Vaginal birth after cesarean section. Acceptance and outcome at a rural hospital. Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 1993;38(9):716–718
  61. Whitsel AI, Capeless EC, Abel DE, Stuart GS. Adjustment for case mix in comparisons of cesarean delivery rates (university versus community hospitals in Vermont). American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2000;183(5):1170–1175

PII: S1049-3867(04)00035-0

doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2004.04.002

Women's Health Issues
Volume 14, Issue 3 , Pages 94-103 , May 2004

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution