IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v37y1993i10p1223-1231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs

Author

Listed:
  • Shearer, Elizabeth L.

Abstract

Cesarean section rates have risen dramatically in the U.S. over the past 20 years. Although infant mortality has declined during the same period, there is little evidence that more frequent cesarean surgery is the cause. Cesareans save lives or benefit health in certain circumstances. but the incidence of those indications has not increased. Cesarean section also has risks, the most significant for the infant being iatrogenic prematurity or respiratory disease. Maternal mortality is 2-4 times higher and morbidity is 5-10 times higher after a cesarean compared to vaginal birth. The four indications responsible for most of the rise in cesarean rates--previous cesarean, dystocia, breech presentation, and fetal distress--are those conferring the least clear-cut benefit. Demographically, women who are most likely to experience pregnancy complications, low birth weight births, or infant mortality are least likely to have a cesarean. Social, economic, and other factors seem to have a greater influence on the decision to perform a cesarean than does expected medical benefit. The development of neonatal intensive care, expanded access to prenatal care, and greater availability of abortion and family planning have contributed more to falling infant mortality. It has been estimated that approximately half the cesareans currently performed in the U.S. are medically unnecessary, resulting in considerable avoidable maternal mortality and morbidity, and a cost of over $1 billion each year.

Suggested Citation

  • Shearer, Elizabeth L., 1993. "Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1223-1231, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:10:p:1223-1231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(93)90334-Z
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Barili, Emilia & Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2021. "Fee equalization and appropriate health care," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    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. Grant, Darren, 2022. "The “Quiet Revolution” and the cesarean section in the United States," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    4. Sara Allin & Michael Baker & Maripier Isabelle & Mark Stabile, 2015. "Accounting for the Rise in C-sections: Evidence from Population Level Data," NBER Working Papers 21022, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Andrea M. Tilstra, 2018. "Estimating Educational Differences in Low-Risk Cesarean Section Delivery: A Multilevel Modeling Approach," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(1), pages 117-135, February.
    6. Schulkind, Lisa & Shapiro, Teny Maghakian, 2014. "What a difference a day makes: Quantifying the effects of birth timing manipulation on infant health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 139-158.
    7. Kaitelidou, Daphne Ch. & Tsirona, Christina S. & Galanis, Petros A. & Siskou, Olga Ch. & Mladovsky, Philipa & Kouli, Eugenia G. & Prezerakos, Panagiotis E. & Theodorou, Mamas & Sourtzi, Panagiota A. &, 2013. "Informal payments for maternity health services in public hospitals in Greece," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 23-30.
    8. Khawaja, Marwan & Kabakian-Khasholian, Tamar & Jurdi, Rozzet, 2004. "Determinants of caesarean section in Egypt: evidence from the demographic and health survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 273-281, September.
    9. Graham Cookson & Ioannis Laliotis, 2018. "Promoting normal birth and reducing caesarean section rates: An evaluation of the Rapid Improvement Programme," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 675-689, April.

    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:eee:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:10:p:1223-1231. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.