Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating Educational Differences in Low-Risk Cesarean Section Delivery: A Multilevel Modeling Approach

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

U.S. rates of cesarean section, and in particular, low-risk cesarean section (LRC) births rose dramatically across the late 1990s and early 2000s, and have since remained high. Although previous research explores how trends in LRC vary between states and across maternal characteristics, within-state heterogeneity has not yet been accounted for, nor has the extent to which maternal and county characteristics might interact to shape the likelihood of a LRC birth. Using U.S. county-level birth data for years 2008–2010 from the restricted National Vital Statistics Systems Cohort Linked Birth-Infant Death Files and the Area Health Resource Files, I conduct race-stratified multilevel analyses to explore the association between the mother’s education, the income of the county in which she gives birth, and the odds of LRC delivery. I find that regardless of race/ethnicity, less education at the individual level and lower income at the county level are associated with higher odds of LRC delivery. There are also persistent racial disparities in these relationships. Non-Hispanic black mothers have the highest overall odds of LRC delivery, yet the effect of both education and county income is greatest for non-Hispanic white mothers. The results highlight the importance of analyzing both individual resources and contextual effects of the county when assessing birthing processes, as both contribute to a mother’s access to and knowledge of natal care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002). Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Affairs, 21(2), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Area Health Resources Files (AHRF) 2015–2016. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Workforce, Rockville, MD.

  • Baicker, K., Buckles, K. S., & Chandra, A. (2006). Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Affairs, 25(5), w355–w367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, P.S. (2005). Complications of Cesarean Deliveries. Medscape PN 04-2-910-809.

  • Bettes, B. A., Coleman, V. H., Zinberg, S., Spong, C. Y., Portnoy, B., DeVoto, E., et al. (2007). Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician–gynecologists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, J. D., Powers, D. A., Padilla, Y. C., & Hummer, R. A. (2002). Low birth weight, social factors, and developmental outcomes among children in the United States. Demography, 39(2), 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, K. (2011). Reproducing race: An ethnography of pregnancy as a site of racialization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J. M., Rouse, D. J., & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(3), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. (2016). What’s Behind San Diego County’s Alarmingly High C-Section Rates? KPBS. Retrieved from http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/apr/28/whats-behind-san-diego-countys-alarmingly-high-c-s/.

  • Epstein, A. J., & Nicholson, S. (2009). The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: An application to cesarean sections. Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1126–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, B. K. (2003). Socioeconomic gradients and low birth-weight: Empirical and policy considerations. Health services research, 38, 1819–1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gálvez, A. (2011). Patient citizens, immigrant mothers: Mexican women, public prenatal care, and the birth weight paradox. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A. (2006). Multilevel (hierarchical) modeling: what it can and cannot do. Technometrics, 48(3), 432–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, L., Belizán, J. M., Lauer, J. A., Betrán, A. P., Merialdi, M., & Althabe, F. (2010). The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report, 30, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gortmaker, S. L., & Wise, P. H. (1997). The first injustice: Socioeconomic disparities, health services technology, and infant mortality. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haelle, Tara. (2016). Your Biggest C-Section Risk May be Your Hospital. Consumer Reports. Retrieved from http://www.consumerreports.org/doctors-hospitals/your-biggest-c-section-risk-may-be-your-hospital/.

  • Häger, R. M., Daltveit, A. K., Hofoss, D., Nilsen, S. T., Kolaas, T., Øian, P., et al. (2004). Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 190(2), 428–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B., Martin, J., Osterman, M., Curtin, S., & Matthews, T. J. (2015). Births: Final Data for 2014. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 65(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozhimannil, K. B., Law, M. R., & Virnig, B. A. (2013). Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Affairs, 32(3), 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, N. (2012, November–December). Labor, Interrupted. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/labor-interrupted.

  • Lu, M. C., & Halfon, N. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes: a life-course perspective. Maternal and child health journal, 7(1), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M. C., Kotelchuck, M., Hogan, V., Jones, L., Wright, K., & Halfon, N. (2010). Closing the black-white gap in birth outcomes: A life-course approach. Ethnicity & Disease, 20, S2.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCourt, C., Weaver, J., Statham, H., Beake, S., Gamble, J., & Creedy, D. K. (2007). Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth, 34(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meit, M., Knudson, A., Gilbert, T., Yu, A. T. C., Tanenbaum, E., Ormson, E., et al. (2014). The 2014 update of the rural-urban chartbook. Bethesda: Rural Health Reform Policy Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miesnik, S. R., & Reale, B. J. (2007). A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 36(6), 605–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, G., Weiser, T. G., Lipsitz, S. R., Esquivel, M. M., Uribe-Leitz, T., Azad, T., et al. (2015). Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA, 314(21), 2263–2270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, T. (2016). Cut it out: The C-section epidemic in America. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, T., & Robinson, J. H. (2017). Forced and coerced cesarean sections in the United States. Contexts, 16(2), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, K., Grobman, W. A., Lee, T. A., & Holl, J. L. (2007). Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110(6), 1264–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS]. [Linked Births Infant Deaths] [2007–2013], as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program.

  • Osterman, M. J., & Martin, J. A. (2014). Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 63(6), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. E., Berquó, E., Perpétuo, I. H., Leal, O. F., Hopkins, K., Souza, M. R., et al. (2001). Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ, 323(7322), 1155–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rackin, H. M., & Bachrach, C. A. (2016). Assessing the predictive value of fertility expectations through a cognitive-social model. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(4), 527–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehavi, M. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2013). Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth. NBER Working Paper 19242.

  • Roberts, D. E. (1999). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, T. (2016). Reducing Unnecessary C-Section Births. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/arsdarian-cutting-the-number-of-c-section-births/?_r=0.

  • Roth, L. M. (2016). What’s the Rush? Tort laws and elective early-term induction of labor. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 57(4), 486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, L. M., & Henley, M. M. (2012). Unequal motherhood: racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cesarean sections in the United States. Social Problems, 59(2), 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuitemaker, N., Roosmalen, J., Dekker, G., Dongen, P., Geijn, H., & Gravenhorst, J. B. (1997). Maternal mortality after cesarean section in The Netherlands. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 76(4), 332–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer, E. L. (1993). Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs. Social Science and Medicine, 37(10), 1223–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spong, C. Y., Berghella, V., Wenstrom, K. D., Mercer, B. M., & Saade, G. R. (2012). Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver national institute of child health and human development, society for maternal-fetal medicine, and American college of obstetricians and gynecologists workshop. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 120(5), 1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenkorang, E. Y. (2016). Type of health facility and utilization of antenatal care services among Ghanaian women. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(5), 631–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tropf, F. C., & Mandemakers, J. J. (2017). Is the association between education and fertility postponement causal? The role of family background factors. Demography, 54, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tussing, A. D., & Wojtowycz, M. A. (1997). Malpractice, defensive medicine, and obstetric behavior. Medical Care, 35(2), 172–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau [Census]. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (2007–2013). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/.

  • US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [HHS]. (2010). Healthy people 2020.

  • Wax, J. R., Cartin, A., Pinette, M. G., & Blackstone, J. (2005). Patient choice cesarean—the Maine experience. Birth, 32(3), 203–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, J. J., Statham, H., & Richards, M. (2007). Are there “unnecessary” cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth, 34(1), 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. T., Mello, M. M., Subramanian, S. V., & Studdert, D. M. (2009). Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Medical Care, 47(2), 234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-funded University of Colorado Population Center (Award Number P2C HD066613) for development, administrative, and computing support; the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems and the National Vital Statistics Systems for providing data access; and Ryan K. Masters and Richard G. Rogers for guidance on analyses and manuscript preparation. This manuscript also benefitted from comments and discussion from the Population Health Working group at the University of Colorado Boulder. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NICHD, the National Institutes, NAPHSIS, or the NVSS. A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the Population Association of America annual meeting in Chicago, IL, April 27–29, 2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

    Andrea M. Tilstra

  2. Population Program, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 483 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0483, USA

    Andrea M. Tilstra

Authors
  1. Andrea M. Tilstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea M. Tilstra.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 622 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Hundred largest metropolitan statistical areas by population size, 2010 Census.
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tilstra, A.M. Estimating Educational Differences in Low-Risk Cesarean Section Delivery: A Multilevel Modeling Approach. Popul Res Policy Rev 37, 117–135 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-017-9452-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-017-9452-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation