Abstract
Objective
To assess the cesarean section rate and compare the risk profiles of cesarean delivery in nulliparous women between private and non-private service.
Materials and methods
The computerized delivery records, collected from June 2006 to May 2009 at Rajavithi Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 11,049 term singleton nulliparous pregnant women without maternal chronic medical disease were divided into two groups; private and non-private group. Demographic data, cesarean section rate, indication for cesarean section, time of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed and analyzed.
Results
The cesarean section rate was markedly different between both groups. The cesarean rates of all pregnant women, women in private group and non-private group were 25.7% (2,841 out of 11,049), 67.3% (1,187 out of 1,765), and 17.8% (1,654 out of 9,284), respectively. The private group’s odds of having a cesarean delivery was 9.44 times [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 8.372–10.655] higher than the non-private group’s after adjusting for background differences (maternal age, race, gestational age and birth weight). The most common indications for cesarean delivery in private group were elderly gravida, unfavorable cervix and cephalopelvic disproportion. The private group had significantly higher operation rate in the office hours than that of non-private group (70.1 vs. 41.8%; p < 0.0001).
After adjusted for background differences, postpartum hemorrhage was significant higher in private group. Conversely, there was fewer admission to neonatal intensive care unit in private group. Low Apgar score at 5 min and perinatal death were not statistically significant in both groups. No cesarean hysterectomy and maternal death in both groups were noted.
Conclusions
Private patients had a significantly higher rate of cesarean section than non-private patients. NICU admission was significantly lower in the private group, but postpartum hemorrhage was significantly higher. There were no significant differences in maternal mortality, low Apgar score at 5 min, perinatal death in both group. This study suggests that a significant number of cesarean sections among private services may be unnecessary. To safely reduce a cesarean section rate, an appropriate policy and guideline for auditing cesarean section among private service should be developed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organization (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2(8452):436–437
Usha Kiran TS, Jayawickrama NS (2002) Who is responsible for the rising caesarean section rate? J Obstet Gynaecol 22(4):363–365
Potter JE, Berquo E, Perpétuo IH, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, Formiga MC (2001) Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 323:1155–1158
Murray SF (2000) Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. Br Med J 321(7275):1501–1505
Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee MS (2004) Women’s attitudes toward mode of delivery in South Korea—a society with high cesarean section rates. Birth 31(2):108–116
Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G, Zafrakas M, Tampakoudis G, Mantalenakis S, Bontis J (2004) Cesarean section rates and indications in Greece: data from a 24-year period in a teaching hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 31(4):289–292
Florica M, Stephansson O, Nordstrom L (2006) Indications associated with increased cesarean section rates in a Swedish hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 92(2):181–185
Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S (2001) Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 15(1):1–15
Tangcharoensathien V (1997) Pattern of hospital delivery in Thailand during 1990–1996, health system research institute, Bangkok
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, Attygalle DE, Shrestha N, Mori R, Nguyen DH, Hoang TB, Rathavy T, Chuyun K, Cheang K, Festin M, Udomprasertgul V, Germar MJ, Yanqiu G, Roy M, Carroli G, Ba-Thike K, Filatova E, Villar J (2010) Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the who global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–2008. Lancet 375(9713):490–499. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5
Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, Velazco A, Bataglia V, Langer A, Narvaez A, Valladares E, Shah A, Campodonico L, Romero M, Reynoso S, de Padua KS, Giordano D, Kublickas M, Acosta A (2007) Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 335(7628):1025
Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM (2004) Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 103(5(Pt 1)):907–912. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000124568.71597.ce
ACOG (2007) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394, December. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 110(6):1501
Lagrew DC Jr, Adashek JA (1998) Lowering the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: comparison of individual physicians’ rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178(6):1207–1214
ACOG (2006) ACOG Practice Bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician–gynecologists number 76, October 2006: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 108(4):1039–1047
ACOG (2002) ACOG Practice Bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 99(1):159–167
ACOG (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 114 (1):192–202. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aef106
Almeida S, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA, Silva AA, Ribeiro VS (2008) Significant differences in cesarean section rates between a private and a public hospital in brazil. Cad Saude Publ 24(12):2909–2918
Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey AB (2006) Chilean women’s preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 113(11):1253–1258
Braveman P, Marchi K, Egerter S, Kim S, Metzler M, Stancil T, Libet M (2010) Poverty, near-poverty, and hardship around the time of pregnancy. Matern Child Health J 14(1):20–35. doi:10.1007/s10995-008-0427-0
Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, Grandjean H, Gratia P, Guaschino S, Heyl W, Taylor D, Cuttini M (2006) Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 113(6):647–656
Bettes BA, Coleman VH, Zinberg S, Spong CY, Portnoy B, DeVoto E, Schulkin J (2007) Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician–gynecologists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 109(1):57–66
Lin HC, Xirasagar S (2004) Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: policy and research implications. Obstet Gynecol 103(1):128–136
Paranjothy S, Frost C, Thomas J (2005) How much variation in cs rates can be explained by case mix differences? BJOG 112(5):658–666
Poma PA (1999) Effects of obstetrician characteristics on cesarean delivery rates. A community hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180(6(Pt 1)):1364–1372
Mawson AR (2002) Reducing cesarean delivery rates in managed care organizations. Am J Manage Care 8(8):730–740
Peipert JF, Hogan JW, Gifford D, Chase E, Randall R (1999) Strength of indication for cesarean delivery: comparison of private physician versus resident service labor management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(2):435–439
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Phadungkiatwattana, P., Tongsakul, N. Analyzing the impact of private service on the cesarean section rate in public hospital Thailand. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284, 1375–1379 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1867-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1867-0