ArticleReproductive health2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quality improvement program to reduce caesarean sections in Brazilian private hospitals: a case study.
Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of a quality improvement project to reduce caesarean sections in selected private hospitals in Brazil.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- An implementation analysis of a quality improvement project to reduce cesarean section in Brazilian private hospitals.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- [Effectiveness of the Adequate Childbirth Program in reducing cesarean section rates in private maternity hospitals in São Paulo , Brazil].Cadernos de saude publica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, a quality improvement project of childbirth care called Adequate Childbirth Project ("Projeto Parto Adequado"- PPA) was implemented in Brazilian public and private hospitals, aiming to improve the quality of childbirth care and to reduce caesarean sections without clinical indications. The objective of this study is to conduct an economic analysis of two models of care existing in a private Brazilian hospital-the model following the recommendations of the PPA and the standard of care model-in reducing the proportion of caesarean sections.
methodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from one of the private hospitals included in the PPA project. The main outcome was the proportion of caesarean section. We used total cost of hospitalization for women and newborns, from the health care sector perspective, during the length of the observed hospital stay. We did not apply discount rates and inflation rate adjustments due to the short time horizon. We conducted univariate sensitivity analysis using the minimum and maximum costs observed in hospitalizations and variation in the probabilities of caesarean section and of maternal and neonatal complications.
results238 puerperal women were included in this analysis. The PPA model of care resulted in a 56.9 percentage point reduction in the caesarean section probability (88.6% vs 31.7%, p < 0.001) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$1,237.40 per avoided caesarean section. Women in the PPA model of care also had a higher proportion of spontaneous and induced labor and a lower proportion of early term births. There were no maternal, fetal or neonatal deaths and no significant differences in cases of maternal and neonatal near miss. The cost of uncomplicated vaginal births and caesarean sections was the parameter with the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness ratio of the PPA model of care.
conclusionThe PPA model of care was cost-effective in reducing caesarean sections in women assisted in a Brazilian private hospital. Moreover, it reduced the frequency of early term births and did not increase the occurrence of severe negative maternal and neonatal outcomes.
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.