IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2004.052381_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002

Author

Listed:
  • Declercq, E.
  • Menacker, F.
  • MacDorman, M.

Abstract

Objectives. We examined factors contributing to shifts in primary cesarean rates in the United States between 1991 and 2002. Methods. US national birth certificate data were used to assess changes in primary cesarean rates stratified according to maternal age, parity, and race/ethnicity. Trends in the occurrence of medical risk factors or complications of labor or delivery listed on birth certificates and the corresponding primary cesarean rates for such conditions were examined. Results. More than half (53%) of the recent increase in overall cesarean rates resulted from rising primary cesarean rates. There was a steady decrease in the primary cesarean rate from 1991 to 1996, followed by a rapid increase from 1996 to 2002. In 2002, more than one fourth of first-time mothers delivered their infants via cesarean. Changing primary cesarean rates were not related to general shifts in mothers' medical risk profiles. However, rates for virtually every condition listed on birth certificates shifted in the same pattern as with the overall rates. Conclusions. Our results showed that shifts in primary cesarean rates during the study period were not related to shifts in maternal risk profiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Declercq, E. & Menacker, F. & MacDorman, M., 2006. "Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(5), pages 867-872.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.052381_7
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.052381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2004.052381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2004.052381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brick, Aoife & Layte, Richard, 2009. "Recent Trends in the Caesarean Section Rate in Ireland 1999-2006," Papers WP309, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    2. Jensen, Vibeke Myrup & Wüst, Miriam, 2015. "Can Caesarean section improve child and maternal health? The case of breech babies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 289-302.
    3. Andrea M. Tilstra & Ryan K. Masters, 2020. "Worth the Weight? Recent Trends in Obstetric Practices, Gestational Age, and Birth Weight in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(1), pages 99-121, February.
    4. Tonei, Valentina, 2019. "Mother’s mental health after childbirth: Does the delivery method matter?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 182-196.
    5. Sofia Amaral‐Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1050-1064, September.
    6. Valentina Tonei, 2017. "Mother’s health after childbirth: does delivery method matter?," Discussion Papers 17/11, Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence From Geographical Discontinuities in Italy," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp540, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    8. Grant, Darren, 2022. "The “Quiet Revolution” and the cesarean section in the United States," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.052381_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.