Dataset Information

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Financial incentives associated with private insurance may encourage healthcare providers to perform more caesarean sections. We therefore sought to determine the association of private insurance and odds of caesarean section.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the first year of records through August 2016.

Eligibility criteria

We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of OR of caesarean section of privately insured as compared with publicly insured women.

Outcomes

The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance.

Results

Eighteen articles describing 21 separate studies in 12.9?million women were included in this study. In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, the adjusted odds of delivery by caesarean section was 1.13 higher among privately insured women as compared with women with public insurance coverage (95%?CI 1.07 to 1.18) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (?²=0.006). The meta-analysis of crude estimates from 12 studies revealed a somewhat more pronounced association (pooled OR 1.35, 95%?CI 1.27 to 1.44) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (?²=0.011).

Conclusions

Caesarean sections are more likely to be performed in privately insured women as compared with women using public health insurance coverage. Although this effect is small on average and variable in its magnitude, it is present in all analyses we performed.

SUBMITTER: Hoxha I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5629699 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hoxha Ilir I Syrogiannouli Lamprini L Braha Medina M Goodman David C DC da Costa Bruno R BR Jüni Peter P

BMJ open 20170821 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Financial incentives associated with private insurance may encourage healthcare providers to perform more caesarean sections. We therefore sought to determine the association of private insurance and odds of caesarean section.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the first year of records through August 2016.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation ...[more]

PMID: 28827257

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.SettingOver 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.ParticipantsWomen at birth. Over 18.5 million births.InterventionCaesarean section.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.ResultsIn adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.ConclusionsWith smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.Prospero registration numberCRD42020158437.

Project description:BackgroundThe rate of caesarean sections (CS) has increased in the last decades to about 30% of births in high income countries. Many CSs are electively planned without an urgent medical reason for mother or child. An early CS though may harm the newborn. Our aim was to evaluate the gestational time point after the 37 + 0 week of gestation (WG) (after prematurity = term) of performing an elective CS with the lowest morbidity for mother and child by assessing the time course from 37 + 0 to 42+ 6 WG.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL in November 2018. We included studies that compared different time points of elective CS at term no matter the reason for elective CS. Our primary outcomes were the rate of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), neonatal death and maternal death in early versus late term elective CS. Various binary and dose response random effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsWe identified 35 studies including 982,749 women. Except one randomised controlled trial, all studies were cohort studies. We performed a linear time-response meta-analysis on the primary outcome NICU admission on 14 studies resulting in a decrease of the relative risk (RR) to 0.63 (95% CI 0.56, 0.71) from 37 + 0 to 39 + 6 WG. RR for neonatal death showed a decrease to 39 + (0-6) WG (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83) and increase from then on (RR 2.09 95% CI 1.18 to 3.70) assuming a U-shape course and using a cubic spline model for meta-analysis of four studies. We only identified one study analyzing maternal death resulting in RR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.40) for 37 + 0 + 38 + 6 WG versus ≥39 + 0 WG.ConclusionOur systematic review showed that elective CS (primary and repeated) before the 39 + 0 WG lead to more NICU admissions and neonatal deaths, although death is rare and increases again after 39 + 6 WG. We did not find enough evidence on maternal outcomes. There is a need for more research, considering maternal outcomes to provide a balanced decision between neonatal and maternal health.Systematic review registrationRegistered in PROSPERO (CRD42017078231).

Project description:BackgroundPerinatal health disparities including disparities in caesarean births have been observed between migrant and non-migrant women and some literature suggests that non-medical factors may be implicated. A systematic review was conducted to determine if migrants in Western industrialized countries consistently have different rates of caesarean than receiving-country-born women and to identify the reasons that explain these differences.MethodsReports were identified by searching 12 literature databases (from inception to January 2012; no language limits) and the web, by bibliographic citation hand-searches and through key informants. Studies that compared caesarean rates between international migrants and non-migrants living in industrialized countries and that did not have a 'fatal flaw' according to the US Preventative Services Task Force criteria were included. Studies were summarized, analyzed descriptively and where possible, meta-analyzed.ResultsSeventy-six studies met inclusion criteria. Caesarean rates between migrants and non-migrants differed in 69% of studies. Meta-analyses revealed consistently higher overall caesarean rates for Sub-Saharan African, Somali and South Asian women; higher emergency rates for North African/West Asian and Latin American women; and lower overall rates for Eastern European and Vietnamese women. Evidence to explain the consistently different rates was limited. Frequently postulated risk factors for caesarean included: language/communication barriers, low SES, poor maternal health, GDM/high BMI, feto-pelvic disproportion, and inadequate prenatal care. Suggested protective factors included: a healthy immigrant effect, preference for a vaginal birth, a healthier lifestyle, younger mothers and the use of fewer interventions during childbirth.ConclusionCertain groups of international migrants consistently have different caesarean rates than receiving-country-born women. There is insufficient evidence to explain the observed differences.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the risk of stillbirth and miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy in women with a previous caesarean or vaginal delivery.DesignSystematic review of the published literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge from 1945 until November 11(th) 2011, using a detailed search-strategy and cross-checking of reference lists.Study selectionCohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies examining the association between previous caesarean section and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage risk. Two assessors screened titles to identify eligible studies, using a standardised data abstraction form and assessed study quality.Data synthesis11 articles were included for stillbirth, totalling 1,961,829 pregnancies and 7,308 events. Eight eligible articles were included for miscarriage, totalling 147,017 pregnancies and 12,682 events. Pooled estimates across the stillbirth studies were obtained using random-effect models. Among women with a previous caesarean an increase in odds of 1.23 [95% CI 1.08, 1.40] for stillbirth was yielded. Subgroup analyses including unexplained stillbirths yielded an OR of 1.47 [95% CI 1.20, 1.80], an OR of 2.11 [95% CI 1.16, 3.84] for explained stillbirths and an OR of 1.27 [95% CI 0.95, 1.70] for antepartum stillbirths. Only one study reported adjusted estimates in the miscarriage review, therefore results are presented individually.ConclusionsGiven the recent revision of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE), providing women the right to request a caesarean, it is essential to establish whether mode of delivery has an association with subsequent risk of stillbirth or miscarriage. Overall, compared to vaginal delivery, the pooled estimates suggest that caesarean delivery may increase the risk of stillbirth by 23%. Results for the miscarriage review were inconsistent and lack of adjustment for confounding was a major limitation. Higher methodological quality research is required to reliably assess the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean delivery has increased worldwide, however, the effects on fertility are largely unknown. This systematic review aims to compare subsequent sub-fertility (time to next pregnancy or birth) among women with a Caesarean delivery to women with a vaginal delivery.MethodsSystematic review of the literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane Library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge (1945 - October 2012), using detailed search-strategies and reference list cross-checking. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies were included. Two assessors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles using standardised data abstraction forms and assessed study quality.Results11 articles were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, of these five articles which adjusted for confounders were combined in a meta-analysis, totalling 750,407 women using fixed-effect models. Previous Caesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of sub-fertility [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.86, 0.93]. Subgroup analyses by parity [primiparous women: OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87, 0.96; not limited to primiparous women: OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73, 0.90]; by publication date (pre-2000: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68, 0.94; post-2000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86, 0.94); by length of follow-up (<10 years: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90; >10 years: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96); by indication for mode of delivery (specified: 0.92, 95% CI 0.88, 0.97; not specified: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); by cohort size (<35,000: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67, 0.92; >35,000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.95), by definition of sub-fertility used divided into (birth interval [BI]: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; inter-pregnancy interval [IPI]: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85, 0.97; and categorical measures: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); continuous measures: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96) were performed. Results of the six studies not included in the meta-analysis (which did not adjust for confounders) are presented individually.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis shows an increased waiting time to next pregnancy and risk of sub-fertility among women with a previous Caesarean delivery. However, included studies are limited by poor epidemiological methods such as variations in the definition of time to next pregnancy, lack of confounding adjustment, or details of the indication for Caesarean delivery. Further research of a more robust methodological quality to better explore any underlying causes of sub-fertility and maternal intent to delay childbearing is warranted.

Dataset Information

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Outcomes

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets