You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 263 No. 24, June 27, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •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

International differences in the use of obstetric interventions

F. C. Notzon
National Center for Health Statistics, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, Md 20782.

This study investigated current levels and trends between 1975 and 1986 in the rates of cesarean section in 21 countries and of operative vaginal delivery in 14 countries. Sharp differences in national obstetric practice were found, with cesarean rates ranging from a high of 32 (Brazil) to 7 (Czechoslovakia) per 100 hospital deliveries, and operative vaginal rates from 16 (Canada) to 2 (Czechoslovakia) per 100 hospital deliveries. For most countries, rates of cesarean section have risen as operative vaginal rates have fallen, but some important exceptions exist. A comparison of cesarean section rates for two complications of labor and delivery that can be objectively diagnosed, multiple births and breech delivery, demonstrates that cesarean section rates for these complications rose sharply in almost every country from 1980 to 1985. A comparison of 1985 national rates of intervention and measures of birth outcome found no significant relationship between the two. While such ecological comparisons are imperfect at best, this does indicate that low levels of early infant mortality can be achieved in some populations despite a low rate of cesarean deliveries.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Obstetric Forceps Training Using Visual Feedback and the Isometric Strength Testing Unit
Leslie et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:377-382.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Physician Cesarean Delivery Rates and Risk-Adjusted Perinatal Outcomes
Li et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:1204-1212.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Native American Community with a 7% Cesarean Delivery Rate: Does Case Mix, Ethnicity, or Labor Management Explain the Low Rate?
Leeman and Leeman
Ann Fam Med 2003;1:36-43.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Inter-hospital variations in caesarean sections. A risk adjusted comparison in the Valencia public hospitals
Librero et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000;54:631-636.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictors of Cesarean Delivery After Prelabor Rupture of Membranes at Term
PELEG et al.
Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:1031-1035.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

"Changing Childbirth" in the United Kingdom: Lessons for U.S. Health Policy
Declercq
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1998;23:833-859.
ABSTRACT  

Neonatal Morbidity After Elective Repeat Cesarean Section and Trial of Labor
Hook et al.
Pediatrics 1997;100:348-353.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1990 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.