IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i1p91-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients' attitudes vs. physicians' determination: implications for cesarean sections

Author

Listed:
  • Lo, Joan C.

Abstract

Most research studies identifying non-clinical factors that influence the choice of Cesarean Section as a method of obstetric delivery assume that the physician makes the decision. This paper arguably shows the role played by the mother. Owing to the fact that Chinese people generally believe that choosing the right days for certain life events, such as marriage, can change a person's fate into a better one, the hypothesis is tested that the probability of Cesarean Sections being performed is significantly higher on auspicious days and significantly lower on inauspicious days. By employing a logistic model and utilizing 1998 birth certificate data for Taiwan, we are able to show that the hypothesis is accepted.

Suggested Citation

  • Lo, Joan C., 2003. "Patients' attitudes vs. physicians' determination: implications for cesarean sections," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 91-96, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:1:p:91-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00301-5
    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. Lo, Joan C., 2008. "Financial incentives do not always work--An example of cesarean sections in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 121-129, October.
    2. Almond, Douglas & Chee, Christine Pal & Sviatschi, Maria Micaela & Zhong, Nan, 2015. "Auspicious birth dates among Chinese in California," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 153-159.
    3. Daniele Fabbri & Chiara Monfardini, 2008. "Style of practice and assortative mating: a recursive probit analysis of Caesarean section scheduling in Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(11), pages 1411-1423.
    4. Gans, Joshua S. & Leigh, Andrew, 2009. "Born on the first of July: An (un)natural experiment in birth timing," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 246-263, February.
    5. Gans, Joshua S. & Leigh, Andrew & Varganova, Elena, 2007. "Minding the shop: The case of obstetrics conferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1458-1465, October.
    6. Guccio, C. & Lisi, D., 2014. "Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services: Theory and evidence from the Italian hospital sector," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Guccio, Calogero & Lisi, Domenico, 2016. "Thus do all. Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services in a highly decentralized healthcare system," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    8. Sara LaLumia & James M. Sallee & Nicholas Turner, 2015. "New Evidence on Taxes and the Timing of Birth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 258-293, May.
    9. Levy, Becca R. & Chung, Pil H. & Slade, Martin D., 2011. "Influence of Valentine’s Day and Halloween on Birth Timing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1246-1248.
    10. 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.
    11. Fabbri, Daniele & Monfardini, Chiara & Castaldini, Ilaria & Protonotari, Adalgisa, 2016. "Cesarean section and the manipulation of exact delivery time," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 780-789.

    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:57:y:2003:i:1:p:91-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.