ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000
Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 227 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Cost analysis of the CTLB Study, a multitherapy antenatal education programme to reduce routine interventions in labour.BMJ open · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Cesarean section trends in Barrero, Dominican Republic: a community-level analysis of rates, risk factors, and patient motivations.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Unpacking childbirth expenditures: what are the factors driving extreme costs in Serbia?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Perinatal outcomes among Indian-born mothers in Australia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Effects of Obstetric Interventions During Labor on Birth Process and Newborn Health.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2021Article
- Do you pay to go private?: a single centre comparison of induction of labour and caesarean section rates in private versus public patients.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Article
- 'If I do 10-15 normal deliveries in a month I hardly ever sleep at home.' A qualitative study of health providers' reasons for high rates of caesarean deliveries in private sector maternity care in Delhi, India.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Factors promoting or inhibiting normal birth.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- The meaning of labour pain: how the social environment and other contextual factors shape women's experiences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Women's preferences for childbirth experiences in the Republic of Ireland; a mixed methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Article
- Differences in nulliparous caesarean section rates across models of care: a decomposition analysis.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Pattern of episiotomy use & its immediate complications among vaginal deliveries in 18 tertiary care hospitals in India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2016Article
- Impact of maternity care policy in Catalonia: a retrospective cross-sectional study of service delivery in public and private hospitals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
- Beyond the hospital door: a retrospective, cohort study of associations between birthing in the public or private sector and women's postpartum care.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Who gives birth in private facilities in Asia? A look at six countries.Health policy and planning · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the risk profile of women receiving public and private obstetric care and to compare the rates of obstetric intervention among women at low risk in these groups.
designPopulation based descriptive study.
settingNew South Wales, Australia. SUBJECTS: All 171,157 women having a live baby during 1996 and 1997.
interventionsEpidural, augmentation or induction of labour, episiotomy, and births by forceps, vacuum, or caesarean section.
main outcome measuresRisk profile of public and private patients, intervention rates, and the accumulation of interventions by both patient and hospital classification (public or private).
resultsOverall, the frequency of women classified as low risk was similar (48%) among those choosing private obstetric care and those receiving standard care in a public hospital. Among low risk women, rates of obstetric intervention were highest in private patients in private hospitals, lowest in public patients, and generally intermediate for private patients in public hospitals. Among primiparas at low risk, 34% of private patients in private hospitals had a forceps or vacuum delivery compared with 17% of public patients. For multiparas the rates were 8% and 3% respectively. Private patients were significantly more likely to have interventions before birth (epidural, induction or augmentation) but this alone did not account for the increased interventions at birth, particularly the high rates of instrumental births.
conclusionsPublic patients have a lower chance of an instrumental delivery. Women should have equal access to quality maternity services, but information on the outcomes associated with the various models of care may influence their choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.