This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Patricia H. Shiono, PhD; Judy G. Fielden; Donald McNellis, MD; George G. Rhoads, MD, MPH; Warren H. Pearse, MD

JAMA. 1987;257(4):494-497.

Abstract
A national probability survey was conducted to evaluate changes since 1979 in cesarean delivery and trial of labor rates after a previous cesarean delivery. Questionnaires were mailed to 538 hospitals and 87% responded. In 1979, of women with a prior cesarean birth 2.1% (±0.3%) were given a trial of labor. By 1984, the rate increased fourfold to 8.0% (±0.7%). Trials of labor increased dramatically with the size of the delivery service. The rates ranged from 2% in smaller hospitals to 25% in larger hospitals. More than 50% of the trials of labor were successful. However, the fraction of hospitals with no trials of labor remains high (54%). Cesarean birth rates increased from 14.1% (±0.1%) in 1979 to 19.0% (±0.2) in 1984. Hospitals with fewer births had a larger variation in cesarean birth rates; the fifth and 95th percentiles were 5% and 33%, respectively, for hospitals with fewer than 500 deliveries per year, and 14% and 31% for hospitals with 1000 deliveries or more per year. Fetal distress accounted for a larger proportion of primary cesarean deliveries in 1984 (21%) compared with 1979 (14%). The observed increase in the rate of trial of labor does not seem to be large enough to stem the rising cesarean delivery rate. This survey and other national surveys provide no evidence that the cesarean delivery rates are leveling off or decreasing.

(JAMA 1987;257:494-497)

Author Affiliations
From the Epidemiology Branch (Drs Shiono and Rhoads) and the Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch (Dr McNellis), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md; and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC (Dr Pearse and Ms Fielden).

Footnotes
Reprint requests to National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Epidemiology Branch, Landow Bldg, Room 7C16, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Dr Shiono).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Determinants of Time off Work after Childbirth
McGovern et al.
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2000;25:527-564.
ABSTRACT  

Relationship Between Malpractice Claims and Cesarean Delivery
Localio et al.
JAMA 1993;269:366-373.
ABSTRACT  

Continuous Emotional Support During Labor in a US Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Kennell et al.
JAMA 1991;265:2197-2201.
ABSTRACT  

The Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Repeat Cesarean Section
Stafford
JAMA 1991;265:59-63.
ABSTRACT  

International Differences in the Use of Obstetric Interventions
Notzon
JAMA 1990;263:3286-3291.
ABSTRACT  

Alternative Strategies for Controlling Rising Cesarean Section Rates
Stafford
JAMA 1990;263:683-687.
ABSTRACT  

The Role of Evidence in the Consensus Process: Results From a Canadian Consensus Exercise
Lomas et al.
JAMA 1988;259:3001-3005.
ABSTRACT  

The Future of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Council on Long Range Planning and Development Wit
JAMA 1987;258:3547-3553.
ABSTRACT  

Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on Physician Practice
Kosecoff et al.
JAMA 1987;258:2708-2713.
ABSTRACT  

Cesarean Births and Trial of Labor Rates
Iffy
JAMA 1987;257:2757-2757.
ABSTRACT  

Cesarean Births and Trial of Labor Rates
Poma
JAMA 1987;257:2757-2758.
ABSTRACT