Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth by caesarean section – a cross sectional study during 2000–2010 in Finland

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Seppo Heinonen⁴  Michael R Kramer³  Mika Gissler¹  Sari Räisänen² 

[1] Nordic School of Public Health, Gothenburg, Sweden;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 100, Kys, Kuopio, FI 70029, Finland;Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA;School of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, Kuopio, FI 70211, Finland

关键词: Socioeconomic status;    Register;    Population register;    Childbirth;    Caesarean section;    Birth;   

Others  :  1127458
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-120

 received in 2013-12-03, accepted in 2014-03-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Caesarean section (CS) rates especially without medical indication are rising worldwide. Most of indications for CS are relative and CS rates for various indications vary widely. There is an increasing tendency to perform CSs without medical indication on maternal request. Women with higher socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to give birth by CS. We aimed to study whether giving birth by CS was associated with SES and other characteristics among singleton births during 2000–2010 in Finland with publicly funded health care.

Methods

Data were gathered from the Finnish Medical Birth Register. The likelihood of giving birth by CS according to CS type (planned and non-planned), parity (nulliparous vs. multiparous), socio-demographic factors, delivery characteristics and time periods (2000–2003, 2004–2007 and 2008–2010) was determined by using logistic regression analysis. SES was classified as upper white collar workers (highest SES), lower white collar workers, blue collar workers (lowest SES), others (all unclassifiable cases) and cases with missing information.

Results

In total, 19.8% (51,511 of 259,736) of the nulliparous women and 13.1% (47,271 of 360,727) of the multiparous women gave birth by CS. CS was associated with several delivery characteristics, such as placental abruption, placenta previa, birth weight and fear of childbirth, among both parity groups. After adjustment, the likelihood of giving birth by planned CS was reduced by 40% in nulliparous and 55% in multiparous women from 2000–2003 to 2008–2010, whereas the likelihood of non-planned CSs did not change. Giving birth by planned and non-planned CS was up to 9% higher in nulliparous women and up to 17% higher in multiparous women in the lowest SES groups compared to the highest SES group.

Conclusions

Giving birth by CS varied by clinical indications. Women with the lowest SES were more likely to give birth by CS, indicating that the known social disparity in pregnancy complications increases the need for operative deliveries in these women. Overall, the CS policy in Finland shows favoring a trial of labor over planned CS and reflects no inequity in healthcare services.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Räisänen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gibbons L, Belizán J, Lauer J, Betrán A, Merialdi M, Althabe F: The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report 2010. http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf webcite] Accessed 25.11.2013
• [2]Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E: Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006, 33(4):270-277.
• [3]Ronsmans C, Holtz S, Stanton C: Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis. Lancet 2006, 368(9546):1516-1523.
• [4]World Health Organization: Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2(8452):436-437.
• [5]EURO-PERISTAT Project: European Perinatal Health Report. 2008. http://www.europeristat.com webcite] Accessed 25.11.2013
• [6]Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, Grandjean H, Gratia P, Guaschino S, Heyl W, Taylor D, Cuttini M: Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006, 113(6):647-656.
• [7]Karlstrom A, Radestad I, Eriksson C, Rubertsson C, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Cesarean section without medical reason, 1997 to 2006: a Swedish register study. Birth 2010, 37(1):11-20.
• [8]Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S: Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 15(1):1-15.
• [9]Howell S, Johnston T, Macleod SL: Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 49(6):606-611.
• [10]Choudhury AP, Dawson AJ: Trends in indications for caesarean sections over 7 years in a Welsh district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 29(8):714-717.
• [11]Liu S, Rusen ID, Joseph KS, Liston R, Kramer MS, Wen SW, Kinch R, Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System: Recent trends in caesarean delivery rates and indications for caesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004, 26(8):735-742.
• [12]Einarsdottir K, Haggar F, Pereira G, Leonard H, de Klerk N, Stanley FJ, Stock S: Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study. BMJ Open 2013., 3(5) 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002789
• [13]Feng XL, Xu L, Guo Y, Ronsmans C: Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ 2012, 90(1):30-39. 39A
• [14]Lee SI, Khang YH, Yun S, Jo MW: Rising rates, changing relationships: caesarean section and its correlates in South Korea, 1988–2000. BJOG 2005, 112(6):810-819.
• [15]Fairley L, Dundas R, Leyland AH: The influence of both individual and area based socioeconomic status on temporal trends in Caesarean sections in Scotland 1980–2000. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:330. 2458-11-330 BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Alves B, Sheikh A: Investigating the relationship between affluence and elective caesarean sections. BJOG 2005, 112(7):994-996.
• [17]Tollanes MC, Thompson JM, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM: Cesarean section and maternal education; secular trends in Norway, 1967–2004. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007, 86(7):840-848.
• [18]Lumme S, Sund R, Leyland AH, Keskimäki I: Socioeconomic equity in amenable mortality in Finland 1992–2008. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75(5):905-913.
• [19]Hetemaa T, Manderbacka K, Reunanen A, Koskinen S, Keskimäki I: Socioeconomic inequities in invasive cardiac procedures among patients with incident angina pectoris or myocardial infarction. Scand J Public Health 2006, 34(2):116-123.
• [20]Hetemaa T, Keskimäki I, Salomaa V, Mähonen M, Manderbacka K, Koskinen S: Socioeconomic inequities in invasive cardiac procedures after first myocardial infarction in Finland in 1995. J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57(3):301-308.
• [21]Räisänen S, Randell K, Nielsen HS, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Klemetti R, Heinonen S: Socioeconomic status affects the prevalence, but not the perinatal outcomes, of in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2013, 28(11):3118-3125.
• [22]Klemetti R, Gissler M, Hemminki E: Equity in the use of IVF in Finland in the late 1990s. Scand J Public Health 2004, 32(3):203-209.
• [23]Klemetti R, Gissler M, Sevon T, Hemminki E: Resource allocation of in vitro fertilization: a nationwide register-based cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007, 7:210. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Statistics Finland: Classification of Occupations 2001. [http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/meta/luokitukset/ammatti/001-2001/index.html webcite] Accessed 25.11.2013
• [25]Gissler M, Rahkonen O, Arntzen A, Cnattingius S, Andersen AM, Hemminki E: Trends in socioeconomic differences in Finnish perinatal health 1991–2006. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009, 63(6):420-425.
• [26]Gissler M, Meriläinen J, Vuori E, Hemminki E: Register based monitoring shows decreasing socioeconomic differences in Finnish perinatal health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57(6):433-439.
• [27]Mortensen LH, Lauridsen JT, Diderichsen F, Kaplan GA, Gissler M, Andersen AM: Income-related and educational inequality in small-for-gestational age and preterm birth in Denmark and Finland 1987–2003. Scand J Public Health 2010, 38(1):40-45.
• [28]Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH: Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ 2010, 341:c5065.
• [29]Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Shah A, Campodonico L, Bataglia V, Faundes A, Langer A, Narvaez A, Donner A, Romero M, Reynoso S, de Padua KS, Giordano D, Kublickas M, Acosta A, WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group: Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367(9525):1819-1829.
• [30]Räisänen S, Gissler M, Saari J, Kramer M, Heinonen S: Contribution of risk factors to extremely, very and moderately preterm births - register-based analysis of 1,390,742 singleton births. PLoS One 2013, 8(4):e60660.
• [31]Räisänen S, Gissler M, Sankilampi U, Saari J, Kramer MR, Heinonen S: Contribution of socioeconomic status to the risk of small for gestational age infants--a population-based study of 1,390,165 singleton live births in Finland. Int J Equity Health 2013, 12:28. 9276-12-28 BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Blumenshine P, Egerter S, Barclay CJ, Cubbin C, Braveman PA: Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2010, 39(3):263-272.