Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11297186›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2001

Provider distribution and variations in statewide cesarean section rates.

W J Hueston, S Lewis-Stevenson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W J HuestonDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA.
S Lewis-Stevenson
Medical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cesarean section rates vary among states from approximately 15% to over 26% of all deliveries. Since it is unlikely that patient factors alone contribute to this wide variation, other non-clinical factors that are unique to each state must influence cesarean section decisions. To explore if provider workforce and specialty was associated with differences in statewide cesarean rates, we compared statewide cesarean rates for 1996 with (1) the volume of deliveries in a state per board-certified obstetrician; (2) percentage of deliveries performed in the state by nurse midwives, and (3) the percentage of family physicians in the state performing obstetrics. In a linear regression model that adjusted for state rurality and median income, we found that only the percentage of family physicians participating in obstetrics was related to cesarean delivery rates. As the percentage of family physicians offering obstetric services increased in a state, the rate of cesarean delivery for that state declined. This effect appeared to be independent of other provider effects, state rurality, or statewide income. Family physician participation in obstetrics is unlikely to be the cause for lower cesarean rates, but is likely a marker for a medical environment and practice style that supports non-operative obstetric care.

Indexed as

Birth CertificatesCesarean SectionDelivery of Health CareFamily PracticeFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMidwiferyObstetricsPractice Patterns, Physicians'PregnancyRural PopulationSocioeconomic FactorsUnited StatesWorkforceWorkload

Identifiers

PMID11297186
OpenAlexW1599322348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.