Dataset Information

A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Health facilities from 43 countries.

Population/sample

Thirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty-four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10,045,875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing.

Methods

We hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical-obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three-step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi-country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models.

Main outcome measures

Area under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate.

Results

According to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C-Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C-Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case-mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e-calculator to facilitate use of C-Model (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/c-model/en/).

Conclusions

This article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C-Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS.

Tweetable abstract

The C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems.

SUBMITTER: Souza JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4873961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, the increased use of cesarean sections has become prevalent in high-income and low and middle-income countries. In Palestine, the rate had risen from 20.3% in 2014 to 25.1% in 2018. We have rates as high as 35.8% in some governmental hospitals and some as low as 15%. This study aimed to understand better why there is a variation in cesarean rates in governmental hospitals that use the same guidelines.MethodsA qualitative and quantitative research approach was used. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 specialists, obstetrics and gynecologists, and midwives in five government hospitals. The hospitals were selected based on the 2017 Annual Health Report reported cesarean section rates. The interview guide was created with the support of specialists and researchers and was piloted. Questions focused mainly on adherence to the obstetric guidelines and barriers to the use, sources of information, training for healthcare providers, the hospital system, and the factors that affect decision-making. Each hospital's delivery records for one month were analyzed to determine the reason for each cesarean section.ResultsThe results indicated that each governmental hospital at the system level had a different policy on cesarean sections. The National Guidelines were found to be interpreted differently among hospitals. One obstetrician-gynecologist decided on a cesarean section at high-rate hospitals, while low-rate hospitals used collective decision-making with empowered midwives. At the professional level, all hospitals urged the importance of a continuous training program to refresh the medical team knowledge, in-house training of new members joining the hospital, and discussion of cases subjective to obstetrician-gynecologists interpretations.ConclusionSeveral institutional factors were identified to strengthen the implementation of the national obstetric guidelines. For example, encouraging collective decision-making between obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives, promoting the use of a second opinion, and mandatory training.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the between-hospital variation of charges and discounted prices for uncomplicated vaginal and caesarean section deliveries, and to determine the institutional and market-level characteristics that influence adjusted charges.Design, setting and participantsUsing data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all privately insured patients admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery (diagnosis-related group (DRG) 775) or uncomplicated caesarean section (DRG 766).Outcome measuresHospital charges and discounted prices adjusted for each patient's clinical and demographic characteristics.ResultsWe analysed 76 766 vaginal deliveries and 32 660 caesarean sections in California in 2011. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we found that the average California woman could be charged as little as US$3296 or as much as US$37 227 for a vaginal delivery, and US$8312-US$70 908 for a caesarean section depending on which hospital she was admitted to. The discounted prices were, on an average, 37% of the charges. We found that hospitals in markets with middling competition had significantly lower adjusted charges for vaginal deliveries, while hospitals with higher wage indices and casemixes, as well as for-profit hospitals, had higher adjusted charges. Hospitals in markets with higher uninsurance rates charged significantly less for caesarean sections, while for-profit hospitals and hospitals with higher wage indices charged more. However, the institutional and market-level factors included in our models explained only 35-36% of the between-hospital variation in charges.ConclusionsThese results indicate that charges and discounted prices for two common, relatively homogeneous diagnosis groups-uncomplicated vaginal delivery and caesarean section-vary widely between hospitals and are not well explained by observable patient or hospital characteristics.