Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries
Open Access
- 28 January 2021
- Vol. 11 (1), e042076
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042076
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals. Setting Over 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020. Participants Women at birth. Over 18.5 million births. Intervention Caesarean section. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. Results In adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2 Conclusions With smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158437.This publication has 77 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hospital Differences in Cesarean Deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004–2006: The Case against Case-Mix ArtifactPLOS ONE, 2013
- Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trialBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012
- Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United StatesAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2010
- Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective studyBMJ, 2007
- Clinical Case Mix Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates in U.S. Military Hospitals, 2002Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2005
- Estimation of an expected caesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the AUDIPOG Sentinelle Network (France)BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2001
- Classification of caesarean sectionsFetal and Maternal Medicine Review, 2001
- Value and cost of teaching hospitalsCritical Care Medicine, 1993
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Case-mix and Cost Differences Between Teaching and Nonteaching HospitalsMedical Care, 1985