Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843622›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Do provider birth attitudes influence cesarean delivery rate: a cross-sectional study.

Emily White VanGompel, Elliott K Main, Daniel Tancredi, Joy Melnikow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Perspectives of midwives on respectful maternity care.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Attitudes of Clinicians and Patient Safety Culture Before and After the ARRIVE Trial.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Emily White VanGompelDepartment of Family Medicine, The University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, 1001 University Place, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA. EWhiteVanGompel@northshore.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0272-0453
Elliott K MainCalifornia Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, Stanford University, Stanford Medical School Office Building, 1265 Welch Road, MS 5415, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Daniel TancrediCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research and Department of Pediatrics, University of California Davis School of Medicine, 2103 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA.
Joy MelnikowCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, 2103 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA.

Funding

Quality Safety Comparative Effectiveness Research Training (QSCERT)T32HS022236 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI MELNIKOW, JOY · 2013 to 2018
$2.1M
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality T32HS022236AHRQ HHS T32 HS022236University of California Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine Jump Start Fund S-D936808
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen used judiciously, cesarean sections can save lives; but in the United States, prior research indicates that cesarean birth rates have risen beyond the threshold to help women and infants and become a contributor to increased maternal mortality and rising healthcare costs. Healthy People 2020 has set the goal for nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) cesarean birth rate at no more than 23.9% of births. Currently, cesarean rates vary from 6% to 69% in US hospitals, unexplained by clinical or demographic factors. This wide variation in cesarean use is also seen among individual providers of intrapartum care. Previous research of birth attitudes found providers of intrapartum care hold widely differing views, which may be a key underlying factor influencing practice variation; however, further study is needed to determine if differences in attitudes are associated with differences in clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the association between individual provider attitudes towards birth and their low-risk primary cesarean rate.

methodsFour hundred providers were drawn from a stratified random sample of all California providers of intrapartum care in 2013 and surveyed for their attitudes towards various aspects of labor and birth. Providers' NTSV cesarean birth rates were obtained for 2013 and 2014. Covariates included gender, years of experience, practice location, and primary hospital's NTSV cesarean rate. We used adjusted multivariate Poisson regression to compare cesarean rates and linear regression to compare attitude scores of providers meeting versus not meeting the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) goal.

resultsTwo hundred nine total participants (obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives) completed surveys, of which 109 perform cesareans. Providers' NTSV cesarean rate was significantly associated with their composite attitudes score [IRR for each one-point increase 1.21 (95% CI 1.002-1.45)]. Physicians meeting the HP2020 goal held attitudes which were significantly more favorable towards vaginal birth: mean 2.70 (95% CI 2.58-2.83) versus 2.91 (95% CI 2.82-3.00), p < 0.01.

conclusionsProvider attitudinal differences are associated with NTSV cesarean rates. Those meeting the HP2020 goal hold attitudes more favorable towards vaginal birth. These findings may present a modifiable target for quality improvement initiatives to decrease low risk primary cesareans.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultCaliforniaCesarean SectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse MidwivesObstetricsParturitionPhysicians, FamilyPoisson DistributionPregnancyRegression AnalysisCesarean sectionCulturePrimary cesareanProvider attitudesQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID29843622
PMCPMC5975533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.