Estimation of an expected caesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the AUDIPOG Sentinelle Network (France). Obstetricians of AUDIPOG. Association of Users of Computerised Files in Perinatalogy, Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Supplementary private health insurance: The impact of physician financial incentives on medical practice

In the French diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based payment system, both private and public hospitals are financed by a public single payer. Public hospitals are overcrowded and have no direct financial incentives to choose one procedure over another. If a patient has a strong preference, they can switch to a private hospital. In private hospitals, the preference does come into play, but the patient has to pay for the additional cost, for which they are reimbursed if they have supplementary private health insurance. Do financial incentives from the fees received by physicians for different procedures drive their behavior? Using French exhaustive data on delivery, we find that private hospitals perform significantly more cesarean deliveries than public hospitals. However, for patients without private health insurance, the two sectors differ much less in terms of cesareans rate. We determine the impact of the financial incentive for patients who can afford the additional cost. Affordability is mainly ensured by the reimbursement of costs by private health insurance. These findings can be interpreted as evidence that, in healthcare systems where a public single payer offers universal coverage, the presence of supplementary private insurance can contribute to creating incentives on the supply side and lead to practices and an allocation of resources that are not optimal from a social welfare perspective.

Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.

SETTING

Over 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Women at birth. Over 18.5 million births.

INTERVENTION

Caesarean section.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.

RESULTS

In adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

With smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020158437.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Appropriateness of elective caesarean deliveries in a perinatal network: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The overall caesarean rate in France has increased from 14.3% in 1994-1996 to 21.0% in 2010. This increased rate is a concern in all developed countries: delivery by caesarean induces both short- and long-term maternal complications, and its use requires careful reflection. The principal objective of this work was to describe the global appropriateness of indications for caesareans among a selected sample of planned caesareans performed within the Auvergne perinatal health network. The secondary objectives were to describe the inappropriate planned caesarean risk according to the maternity unit level and the impact of this medical assessment on the global caesarean rate in this network.

METHODS

This audit among maternity units belonging to the Auvergne perinatal network in France included women who had a planned caesarean at term, were nulliparous or primiparous, and had a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation or a twin pregnancy with twin 1 in cephalic presentation. We used the French guidelines issued from 1998 through 2010 as our benchmark for appropriateness.

RESULT

We analysed 192 cases (100% of the records eligible for the audit). The rate of appropriate caesareans among these planned caesareans was 65.6%. Among the inappropriate caesareans, the rate of "maternal-preference" caesareans was 12.0% and the rate of "provider-preference" caesareans 22.4%. The risk of an inappropriate caesarean did not differ statistically between the level I and level II maternity wards, each compared to the level III hospital. The overall caesarean rate in our entire network decreased from 20.5% to 18.5% (p < 0.001) in the year after the audit. It also decreased in 8 of the network's 10 maternity units, although the difference was statistically significant only in 2.

CONCLUSIONS

About one third of planned caesareans were inappropriate in our sample and our audit appeared to have some effect on medical practice in the short run.

An investigation of Caesarean sections in three Greek hospitals: the impact of financial incentives and convenience

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section (CS) rates have been increasing dramatically in the past decades around the world. The objective of our study was to investigate the factors increasing the likelihood of undergoing CS in two public hospitals and one private hospital in Athens, Greece. Specifically, the purpose was primarily to assess the impact of non-medical factors such as private health insurance, potential for making informal payments, physician convenience and socio-economic status on the rate of CS deliveries.

METHODS

All available demographic, socio-economic and medical information from the medical records of all deliveries in the three hospitals in January 2002 were analysed. The relative importance of the variables in predicting delivery with CS rather than normal vaginal delivery was calculated in multiple logistic regression models to generate odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

The CS rate in the public hospitals was 41.6% (52.5% for Greeks and 26% for immigrants), while the CS rate in the private hospital was 53% (65.2% for women with private insurance and 23.9% for women who paid directly). In the public hospitals, after controlling for demographic and medical factors, Greek ethnic background, delivery between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., between 4 p.m. and midnight, and on Monday, Wednesday and Friday were found to increase the likelihood of CS delivery. In the private hospital, having private health insurance is the strongest predictor of CS delivery, followed by delivery between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., between 4 p.m. and midnight, delivery on a Saturday and being a housewife.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study lend support to the hypothesis that physicians are motivated to perform CS for financial and convenience incentives. The recent commercialization of gynaecology services in Greece is discussed, along with its implications on physicians' decisions to perform CS.