Advertisement
AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, Issue 9 1384-1387, Copyright © 1998 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow purchase articles
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Get other permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, K D
Right arrow Articles by Notzon, F C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, K D
Right arrow Articles by Notzon, F C
Changes in indications for cesarean delivery: United States, 1985 and 1994.

K D Gregory, S C Curtin, S M Taffel and F C Notzon

Cedars-Sinai Research Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.

OBJECTIVES: The percentages of cesarean deliveries attributable to specific indications (breech, dystocia, fetal distress, and elective repeat cesarean) were computed for 1985 and 1994. METHODS: Data were derived from the 1985 and 1994 National Hospital Discharge Surveys. RESULTS: Dystocia was the leading indication for cesarean delivery in both years. In comparison with 1985, cesareans performed in 1994 that were attributable to dystocia and breech presentation increased, those attributable to fetal distress did not change significantly, and elective repeat cesareans declined. CONCLUSIONS: Studying indications for cesareans can be useful for hospitals, clinicians, and researchers in determining strategies to lower primary and repeat cesarean rates.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
A. T.N. Tita, M. B. Landon, C. Y. Spong, Y. Lai, K. J. Leveno, M. W. Varner, A. H. Moawad, S. N. Caritis, P. J. Meis, R. J. Wapner, et al.
Timing of Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery at Term and Neonatal Outcomes
N. Engl. J. Med., January 8, 2009; 360(2): 111 - 120.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
E. Declercq, F. Menacker, and M. MacDorman
Maternal Risk Profiles and the Primary Cesarean Rate in the United States, 1991-2002
Am J Public Health, May 1, 2006; 96(5): 867 - 872.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Care Res RevHome page
S. M. Koroukian
Relative Risk of Postpartum Complications in the Ohio Medicaid Population: Vaginal Versus Cesarean Delivery
Med Care Res Rev, June 1, 2004; 61(2): 203 - 224.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
L. Leeman and R. Leeman
A Native American Community with a 7% Cesarean Delivery Rate: Does Case Mix, Ethnicity, or Labor Management Explain the Low Rate?
Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2003; 1(1): 36 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 American Journal of Medical QualityHome page
A. M. Peaceman, J. Feinglass, and L. M. Manheim
Risk-Adjustment of Cesarean Delivery Rates: A Practical Method for Use in Quality Improvement
American Journal of Medical Quality, May 1, 2002; 17(3): 113 - 117.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Public Health Association