Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:00:48.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information Dissemination and the Cesarean Birth Rate: The Illinois Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Denise M. Oleske ,
Gerald L. Glandon ,
Daniel J. Tancredi ,
Mehdi Nassirpour  and
John R. Noak
Denise M. Oleske
Affiliation:
Rush University
Gerald L. Glandon
Affiliation:
Rush University
Daniel J. Tancredi
Affiliation:
Rush University
Mehdi Nassirpour
Affiliation:
Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council
John R. Noak
Affiliation:
Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was initiated to investigate the impact of information dissemination in Illinois upon the projected rise in the cesarean birth rate over the period from 1986 through 1988. The total cesarean birth rate in Illinois had not changed significantly during this period, whereas the rate of vaginal births after cesarean sections (VBAC) increased by 58.4% (p <.001). Information dissemination may have contributed to stemming an increase in the cesarean birth rate in Illinois while promoting VBAC deliveries.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 708 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for vaginal delivery after a previous cesarean birth Statement of the committee on obstetrics: Maternal and fetal medicine. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1984.Google Scholar
2.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. New guidelines for VBAC: Statement of the committee on obstetrics: Maternal and fetal medicine. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1988.Google Scholar
3.Anderson, G. M., & Lomas, J.Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: Patients, facilities or policies? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1985, 132, 253–59.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Anderson, G. M., & Lomas, J.Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 887–92.Google Scholar
5.Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Illinois plan takes aim at increasing C-section rates. Consumer Exchange. Washington, DC: The Association, 05 1988.Google Scholar
6.Burton, W. N., Hoy, D. A., & Stephens, M.A computer-assisted health care cost management system. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1991, 33, 268–71.Google Scholar
7.Flamm, B. L., Newman, L. A., Thomas, S. J., et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: Results of a 5-year multivariate collaborative study. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1990, 75, 750–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Ford, L. G.Innovations in diffusion. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, 1989, 293, 23–33.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Gleicher, N.Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 252, 3273–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Gould, J. B., Davey, B., & Stafford, R. S.Socioecoriomic differences in rates of cesarean section. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 233–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Hage, M. L., Heims, J., Hammond, W. E., et al. Changing rates of cesarean delivery: The Duke experience, 1978–1986. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1988, 72, 98–101.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Horan, T. C., White, J. W., Jarvis, W. R., et al. Nosocomial infection surveillance. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 1984, 35 (suppl. 1), 17–29.Google Scholar
13.Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council. The consumer guide to charges at Illinois hospitals by illness categories (under age 65) for the reporting period July 1,1985 through December 31, 1985. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council. The consumer guide to charges at Illinois hospitals by illness categories (under age 65) for the reporting period January 1,1986 through December 31, 1986. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 1987.Google Scholar
15.Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council. The consumer guide to charges at Illinois hospitals by illness categories (under age 65) for the reporting period January 1,1987 through December 31, 1987. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 1988.Google Scholar
16.Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council. Cesarean section deliveries in Illinois. Section 1: patient and hospital characteristics. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 1988.Google Scholar
17.Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council. Cesarean section deliveries in Illinois. Section II: hospital specific analysis. Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 1988.Google Scholar
18.Kanouse, D. E., & Jacoby, I.When does information change practitioners' behavior? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Kelly, J. V.Characteristics of COTH member, other teaching, and non-teaching hospitals, 1987. Academic Medicine, 1989, 64, 692–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Kinworthy, G., & Gospo, N.Development of an effective utilization management program at Celtic Life Insurance Company. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 138–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kosecoff, J., Kanouse, D. E., Rogers, D. E., et al. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus development program on physician practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 2708–13.Google Scholar
22.Kunzel, C., & Sadowsky, D.Knowledge acquisition process: Dissemination of expert recom mendations to general practice dentists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1989, 30, 330–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.LaSala, A. P., & Berkeley, A. S.Primary cesarean section and subsequent fertility. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1987, 157, 379–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 1306–11.Google Scholar
25.McCusker, J., Harris, D. R., & Hosmer, D. W.Association of electronic fetal monitoring during labor with cesarean section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 1988, 78, 1170–74.Google Scholar
26.Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Costs for cesarean section: Regional variations. Statistical Bulletin, 1986, 67, 2–8.Google Scholar
27.Myers, S. A., & Gleicher, N.1988 U.S. cesarean-section rate: Good news or bad? (letter) New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 200.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Myers, S. A., & Gleicher, N.A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 1511–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.National Center for Health Statistics: 1989 summary: National Hospital Discharge Survey. Advance data from vital and health statistics. No. 199. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91–1250. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, 1991.Google Scholar
30.Newton, E. R., & Higgins, C. S.Factors associated with hospital-specific cesarean birth rates. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 1989, 34, 407–11.Google Scholar
31.Notzon, F. C.International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 3286–91.Google Scholar
32.O'Driscoll, K., Foley, M., & MacDonald, D.Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1984, 63, 485–90.Google Scholar
33.Oleske, D. M., Glandon, G. L., Giacomelli, G., et al. The cesarean birth rate: Influence of hospital teaching status. HSR: Health Service Research, 1991, 26, 325–37.Google Scholar
34.Peay, M. Y., & Peay, E. R.Patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs by specialists. Social Science in Medicine, 1990, 31, 467–76.Google Scholar
35.Placek, P. J., & Taffel, S. M.Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in the 1980's. American Journal of Public Health, 1988, 78, 512–15.Google Scholar
36.Placek, P. J., Taffel, S. M., & Moien, M.1986 C-section rise; VBACs inch upward. American Journal of Public Health, 1988, 78, 562–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Shiono, P., McNellis, D., & Rhoads, G. G.Reasons for the rising cesarean delivery rates: 1978–1984. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1987, 69, 696–700.Google Scholar
38.Shy, K. W., Luthy, D. A., Bennett, F. C., et al. Effects of electronic fetal-heart rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 322, 588–93.Google Scholar
39.Stafford, R. S.Recent trends in cesarean section rise in California. Western Journal of Medicine, 1990, 153, 511–14.Google ScholarPubMed
40.Stafford, R. S.The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Stafford, R. S.Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 683–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Stafford, R. S.Cesarean section use and source of payment. An analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. American Journal of Public Health, 1990, 88, 313–15.Google Scholar
43.Taffel, S. M., Placek, P. J., & Liss, T.Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980–85 rise. American Journal of Public Health, 1987, 77, 955–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Taffel, S. M., Placek, P. J., & Moien, M.1988, U.S. Cesarean-section rate at 24.7 per 100 births — a plateau? New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 199–200.Google Scholar
45.Taffel, S. M.Placek, P. J., Moien, M., et al. 1989 U.S. cesarean section rate steadies — VBAC rate rises to nearly one in five. Birth, 1991, 18, 73–77.Google Scholar
46.USDHHS. The international classification of disease, 9th revision, Clinical modifications. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 89–1260. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.Google Scholar
47.USDHHS. Cesarean childbirth: Report of the NICHD Task Force on Cesarean Childbirth. NIH Pub. No. 82–2067. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1981.Google Scholar
48.Weiss, R., Charney, E., Baumgardner, R. A., et al. Changing patient management: What influences the practicing pediatrician? Pediatrics, 1990, 85, 791–95.Google Scholar
49.Williams, R. L., & Chen, P. M.Controlling the rise in'cesarean section rates by the dissemination of information from vital records. American Journal of Public Health, 1983, 73, 863–67.Google Scholar