medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2020, Number 10

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2020; 88 (10)

Influence of non-medical factors for cesarean birth in a private hospital

Urquiza CF, Martínez-Villafaña E, Quesnel García-Benítez CA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 667-674
PDF size: 207.18 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To find the non-medical factors that intervene in the obstetrician’s criteria for choosing a birth canal or Cesarean section.
Materials and Methods: Transversal, retrospective, observational and analytical study carried out on patients attended between 2016 and 2019 at Hospital Ángeles Lomas (Mexico City), with more than 24 weeks of pregnancy and who finished it by vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Exclusion criterion: Multiple pregnancies. Dependent variable: birth by delivery or cesarean section. Independent variables: sex of the obstetrician, office in the same hospital or outside, availability of medical assistant, month of the year, day of the week and vacation period.
Results: 3906 births, 1495 cesarean sections (38.3%) and 2411 deliveries (61.7%) were included. A higher risk of cesarean section was observed, with statistical significance in: births attended by external obstetricians (OR = 3.81; CI95%: 3.07-4.73), births attended by obstetricians at the same hospital without a physician’s assistant (OR = 1. 75; CI95%: 1.48-2.08), female obstetricians (OR = 2.55; CI95%: 2.06-3.16), April vs. December (OR = 1.44; CI95%:1.04-1.98) and Wednesday vs More cesarean sections were recorded in the pre-vacation vs. vacation period (OR = 1.51; IC95%: 0.94-2.43) with no statistically significant difference.
Conclusions: There are non-medical factors that increase the frequency of cesarean section. Those related to the obstetrician included: not having the office in the same hospital and not having a medical assistant.


REFERENCES

  1. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Declaración de la OMS sobre tasas de cesárea. Ginebra: Organización Mundial de la Salud 2015.

  2. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985; 2 (8452): 436-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(85)92750-3

  3. Manny-Zitle AI, et al. Incidencia de la operación cesárea según la clasificación de Robson en el Servicio de Ginecología y Obstetricia del Hospital Gral. Dr. Fernando Quiroz Gutiérrez, ISSSTE. Cir Cir. 2018; 86 (3): 261-69. doi: 10.24875/CIRU.M18000044.

  4. Caughey AB, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (3): 179-93. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026.

  5. Liu S, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth at term. CMAJ. 2007; 176 (4): 455-60. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.060870

  6. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017. Nov;130 (5):217-233. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002398.

  7. Suárez-López L, et al. Características sociodemográficas y reproductivas asociadas con el aumento de cesáreas en México. Salud Pública de México. 2013; 55(2): 225-34. doi: 10.21149/spm.v55s2.5119.

  8. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Principales resultados de la Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica (ENADID) 2018. Nota técnica. México. http://en.www. inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/enadid/2018/doc/ nota_tec_enadid_18.pdf>

  9. Kozhimannil KB, et al. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32 (3): 527-35. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030

  10. Rajabi A, et al. Risk factors for C-section delivery and population attributable risk for C-section risk factors in Southwest of Iran: a prospective cohort study. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015; 29: 294. http://shafaorthoj.com/ journalsys/mjiri/article-1-3323-en.pdf

  11. Elnakib S, et al. Medical and non-medical reasons for cesarean section delivery in Egypt: a hospital-based retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2019; 19: 411. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2558-2.

  12. Bernal García C, et al. Cesárea: situación actual y factores asociados en México. Salud Quintana Roo. 2018; 11 (40): 28-33. https://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/salquintanaroo/ sqr-2018/sqr1840e.pdf

  13. Muñoz-Enciso J, et al. Operación cesárea: ¿Indicación justificante o preocupación justificada? Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2011; 79 (2): 67-74.

  14. Mitler LK, et al. Physician gender and cesarean sections. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53 (10): 1030-5. doi: 10.1016/s0895- 4356(00)00221-3

  15. Berkowitz GS, et al. Effect of physician characteristics on the cesarean birth rate. AM J Obstet Gyneco. 1989; 161:146-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(89)90252-4”

  16. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 2001; 12 (1) :23-39. doi: 10.1017/S0965539501000122

  17. Paleari L, et al. Tasa de cesáreas en dos hospitales privados con normativas diferentes: abierto y cerrado. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2012; 80 (04):263-269.

  18. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la Reducción de la Frecuencia de Operación Cesárea. Evidencias y recomendaciones. Instituto Mexicano de Seguro social. Rev. IMSS Mexico, 2014 [en línea]. Dirección URL: < http://www.cenetec.salud.gob. mx/descargas/gpc/CatalogoMaestro/048_GPC_Cesarea/ IMSS_048_08_EyR.pdf > (Consulta: abril 2020).




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com