Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Maternal and Child Health Journal
Erschienen in: Maternal and Child Health Journal 1/2015

01.01.2015

Determinants of Cesarean Delivery in the US: A Lifecourse Approach

verfasst von: Whitney P. Witt, Lauren E. Wisk, Erika R. Cheng, Kara Mandell, Debanjana Chatterjee, Fathima Wakeel, Amy L. Godecker, Dakota Zarak

Erschienen in: Maternal and Child Health Journal | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This study takes a lifecourse approach to understanding the factors contributing to delivery methods in the US by identifying preconception and pregnancy-related determinants of medically indicated and non-medically indicated cesarean section (C-section) deliveries. Data are from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort, a nationally representative, population-based survey of women delivering a live baby in 2001 (n = 9,350). Three delivery methods were examined: (1) vaginal delivery (reference); (2) medically indicated C-section; and (3) non-medically indicated C-sections. Using multinomial logistic regression, we examined the role of sociodemographics, health, healthcare, stressful life events, pregnancy complications, and history of C-section on the odds of medically indicated and non-medically indicated C-sections, compared to vaginal delivery. 74.2 % of women had a vaginal delivery, 11.6 % had a non-medically indicated C-section, and 14.2 % had a medically indicated C-section. Multivariable analyses revealed that prior C-section was the strongest predictor of both medically indicated and non-medically indicated C-sections. However, we found salient differences between the risk factors for indicated and non-indicated C-sections. Surgical deliveries continue to occur at a high rate in the US despite evidence that they increase the risk for morbidity and mortality among women and their children. Reducing the number of non-medically indicated C-sections is warranted to lower the short- and long-term risks for deleterious health outcomes for women and their babies across the lifecourse. Healthcare providers should address the risk factors for medically indicated C-sections to optimize low-risk delivery methods and improve the survival, health, and well-being of children and their mothers.
Fußnoten
1
We estimated the total number of C-sections attributable to PSLEs by differencing the average marginal effect of PSLEs on C-sections under the assumption that all women with any PSLE became unexposed (note that this estimate amounts to 11 % of all C-sections among women exposed to any PSLEs, or 2.8 % of all C-sections). We then multiplied this number by the difference in allowed paid amount between vaginal and C-section delivery cited by Truven Health Analytics [6] ($3,691 per delivery) to obtain the total C-section-related expenditures associated with these deliveries.
 
Literatur
1.
MacDorman, M. F., Menacker, F., & Declercq, E. (2008). Cesarean birth in the United States: Epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clinics in Perinatology, 35(2), 293–307.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hamilton, B., Martin, J., & Ventura, S. (2011). Births: Preliminary data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Report, 60(2), 3.
3.
Boutsikou, T., & Malamitsi-Puchner, A. (2011). Caesarean section: Impact on mother and child. Acta Paediatrica, 100(12), 1518–1522.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Pai, M. (2000). Unnecessary medical interventions: Caesarean sections as a case study. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(31), 2755–2761.
5.
Soet, J. E., Brack, G. A., & DiIorio, C. (2003). Prevalence and predictors of women’s experience of psychological trauma during childbirth. Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 30(1), 36–46.CrossRef
6.
7.
Declercq, E., Barger, M., Cabral, H. J., et al. (2007). Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(3), 669–677.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Liu, T. C., Chen, C. S., & Lin, H. C. (2008). Does elective caesarean section increase utilization of postpartum maternal medical care? Medical Care, 46(4), 440–443.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Halfon, N., & Hochstein, M. (2002). Life course health development: An integrated framework for developing health, policy, and research. Milbank Quarterly, 80(3), 433–479.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort, nine-month data collection. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; (2001). Washington, DC.
11.
Kalish, R. B., McCullough, L., Gupta, M., et al. (2004). Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: A previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 103(6), 1137–1141.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Chu, S., Kim, S., Schmid, C., et al. (2007). Maternal obesity and risk of cesarean delivery: A meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 8(5), 385–394.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Bansil, P., Kuklina, E. V., Meikle, S. F., et al. (2010). Maternal and fetal outcomes among women with depression. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(2), 329–334.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Khashan, A., McNamee, R., Abel, K., et al. (2009). Rates of preterm birth following antenatal maternal exposure to severe life events: A population-based cohort study. Human Reproduction, 24(2), 429–437.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Khashan, A. S., McNamee, R., Abel, K. M., et al. (2008). Reduced infant birthweight consequent upon maternal exposure to severe life events. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(6), 688–694.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Class, Q. A., Khashan, A. S., Lichtenstein, P., et al. (2013). Maternal stress and infant mortality: The importance of the preconception period. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1309–1316.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
Witt, W. P., Cheng, E. R., Wisk, L. E., et al. (2014). Maternal stressful life events prior to conception and the impact on infant birth weight in the United States. AJPH, 104(S1), S81–S89.CrossRef
19.
Witt, W. P., Cheng, E. R., Wisk, L. E., et al. (2014). Preterm birth in the United States: The impact of stressful life events prior to conception and maternal age. AJPH, 104(S1), S73–S80.CrossRef
20.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1987). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31–49). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Dunkel-Schetter, C. (2011). Psychological science on pregnancy: Stress processes, biopsychosocial models, and emerging research issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 531–558.PubMedCrossRef
22.
McEwen, B. S. (2006). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840(1), 33–44.CrossRef
23.
Wadhwa, P. D., Culhane, J. F., Rauh, V., et al. (2001). Stress, infection and preterm birth: A biobehavioural perspective. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 15(S2), 17–29.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Seng, J. S., Oakley, D. J., Sampselle, C. M., et al. (2001). Posttraumatic stress disorder and pregnancy complications. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 97(1), 17–22.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Da Costa, D., Larouche, J., Dritsa, M., et al. (2000). Psychosocial correlates of prepartum and postpartum depressed mood. Journal of Affective Disorders, 59(1), 31–40.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kramer, M. R., Hogue, C. J., Dunlop, A. L., et al. (2011). Preconceptional stress and racial disparities in preterm birth: An overview. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 90(12), 1307–1316.PubMedCrossRef
27.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion no. 559. (2013). Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 121(4), 904–907.CrossRef
28.
Grobman, W. A., Gersnoviez, R., Landon, M. B., et al. (2007). Pregnancy outcomes for women with placenta previa in relation to the number of prior cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110(6), 1249–1255.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Silver, R. M., Landon, M. B., Rouse, D. J., et al. (2006). Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(6), 1226–1232.PubMedCrossRef
30.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123, 693–711.
31.
Cunningham, F. G., Bangdiwala, S., Brown, S., et al. (2010). Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference. pp. 1279–1295.
32.
Leeman, L. M., Beagle, M., Espey, E., et al. (2013). Diminishing availability of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in New Mexico hospitals. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 122 (2, Part 1), 242–247.CrossRef
33.
Roberts, R. G., Deutchman, M., King, V. J., et al. (2007). Changing policies on vaginal birth after cesarean: Impact on access. Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 34(4), 316–322.CrossRef
34.
Northam, S., & Knapp, T. R. (2006). The reliability and validity of birth certificates. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 35(1), 3–12.
35.
Wakeel, F., Wisk, L., Gee, R., et al. (2013). The balance between stress and personal capital during pregnancy and the relationship with adverse obstetric outcomes: Findings from the 2007 Los Angeles Mommy and Baby (LAMB) study. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 16(6), 435–451.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Determinants of Cesarean Delivery in the US: A Lifecourse Approach
verfasst von
Whitney P. Witt
Lauren E. Wisk
Erika R. Cheng
Kara Mandell
Debanjana Chatterjee
Fathima Wakeel
Amy L. Godecker
Dakota Zarak
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Maternal and Child Health Journal / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 1092-7875
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6628
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1498-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Maternal and Child Health Journal 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Prevalence of Serious Psychological Distress and Mental Health Treatment in a National Sample of Pregnant and Postpartum Women

OriginalPaper

Family Process Correlates of Firearm Ownership and Firearm Storage Among Families with Young Children

OriginalPaper

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Educational Achievement and Aspirations: Findings from a Statewide Survey from 1998 to 2010

OriginalPaper

Gendered Effects of Siblings on Child Malnutrition in South Asia: Cross-sectional Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys from Bangladesh, India, and Nepal

OriginalPaper

Trends in Weight Management Goals and Behaviors Among 9th–12th Grade Students: United States, 1999–2009

OriginalPaper

Domestic Violence Among Adolescents in HIV Prevention Research in Tanzania: Participant Experiences and Measurement Issues