Loading…
Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study
Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMJ 2010-10, Vol.341 (7777), p.818-818 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b555t-d4a3a0bfcacf4ea4a7a1f6f50a0f2e32c7218022b245922994825adc8c52329e3 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 818 |
container_issue | 7777 |
container_start_page | 818 |
container_title | BMJ |
container_volume | 341 |
creator | Bragg, Fiona Cromwell, David A Edozien, Leroy C Gurol-Urganci, Ipek Mahmood, Tahir A Templeton, Allan van der Meulen, Jan H |
description | Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model.Setting 146 English NHS trusts.Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008.Main outcome measure Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn).Results Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section.Conclusion Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.c5065 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2950923</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25738450</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25738450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b555t-d4a3a0bfcacf4ea4a7a1f6f50a0f2e32c7218022b245922994825adc8c52329e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkl9rFDEUxQdR7FL74AdQAgriw9T8n0kfBFmqFUuFVkvfwt1sZpvtTFKTjNhP4Nc2u9uuf0D6FG7Oj8O9h1NVTwneJ4TJN7NhuW8EluJBNSFctrVoGXtYTbASqm4Ja3eqvZSWGGPKmlZJ8bjaoVhRyRWeVD_PITrILnjkPIqQbUKhQwZsgmjBo2TNWoUh-AU69IvepUt0cnSGchxTTgi6bCMCY8LosytMFyIailH00CPwc2R6550pQ3Tp6gCZGFK68y2_KY_zmyfVow76ZPdu393q6_vDL9Oj-vjzh4_Td8f1TAiR6zkHBnjWGTAdt8ChAdLJTmDAHbWMmoaSFlM6o1woSpXiLRUwN60RlFFl2W71duN7Pc4GOzfW5wi9vo5ugHijAzj9t-LdpV6E75oqUUJjxeDVrUEM30absh5cMrbvwdswJt1SylVDpbqfJG3DGsXvJxvRkEZyLgv54h9yGcZV0EkThZXEmElSqNcbah11tN32PoL1qjS6lEavS1PY538GsiXvKlKAZxtgmXKIv3XRsJaLlV5vdJey_bHVIV5pWe4T-uR8qk9PL9QncUb1ReFfbvjVDv_f6xeMt-N5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1909600361</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>BMJ journals single titles</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Bragg, Fiona ; Cromwell, David A ; Edozien, Leroy C ; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek ; Mahmood, Tahir A ; Templeton, Allan ; van der Meulen, Jan H</creator><creatorcontrib>Bragg, Fiona ; Cromwell, David A ; Edozien, Leroy C ; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek ; Mahmood, Tahir A ; Templeton, Allan ; van der Meulen, Jan H</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model.Setting 146 English NHS trusts.Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008.Main outcome measure Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn).Results Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section.Conclusion Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-535X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5065</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20926490</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BMJOAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Births ; Caesarean section ; Cesarean section ; Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data ; Childbirth & labor ; Classification ; Clinical risk factors ; Codes ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; England - epidemiology ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Ethnic Studies ; Female ; Fetuses ; Health risk assessment ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Medical research ; Minority & ethnic groups ; National health services ; North-South divide ; Obstetrics ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology ; Pregnancy Complications - surgery ; Public health ; Regression Analysis ; Risk Factors ; State Medicine ; Statistical analysis ; Trusts ; Womens health ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2010-10, Vol.341 (7777), p.818-818</ispartof><rights>Bragg et al 2010</rights><rights>2010 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright: 2010 © Bragg et al 2010</rights><rights>Bragg et al 2010 2010 Bragg et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b555t-d4a3a0bfcacf4ea4a7a1f6f50a0f2e32c7218022b245922994825adc8c52329e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5065.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5065.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>112,113,230,314,780,784,885,3194,27924,27925,31000,58238,58471,77594,77595</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20926490$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bragg, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cromwell, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edozien, Leroy C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurol-Urganci, Ipek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahmood, Tahir A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Templeton, Allan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Meulen, Jan H</creatorcontrib><title>Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model.Setting 146 English NHS trusts.Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008.Main outcome measure Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn).Results Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section.Conclusion Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Births</subject><subject>Caesarean section</subject><subject>Cesarean section</subject><subject>Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Clinical risk factors</subject><subject>Codes</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>England - epidemiology</subject><subject>Epidemiologic Studies</subject><subject>Ethnic Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetuses</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Minority & ethnic groups</subject><subject>National health services</subject><subject>North-South divide</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pregnancy Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>State Medicine</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Trusts</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-535X</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkl9rFDEUxQdR7FL74AdQAgriw9T8n0kfBFmqFUuFVkvfwt1sZpvtTFKTjNhP4Nc2u9uuf0D6FG7Oj8O9h1NVTwneJ4TJN7NhuW8EluJBNSFctrVoGXtYTbASqm4Ja3eqvZSWGGPKmlZJ8bjaoVhRyRWeVD_PITrILnjkPIqQbUKhQwZsgmjBo2TNWoUh-AU69IvepUt0cnSGchxTTgi6bCMCY8LosytMFyIailH00CPwc2R6550pQ3Tp6gCZGFK68y2_KY_zmyfVow76ZPdu393q6_vDL9Oj-vjzh4_Td8f1TAiR6zkHBnjWGTAdt8ChAdLJTmDAHbWMmoaSFlM6o1woSpXiLRUwN60RlFFl2W71duN7Pc4GOzfW5wi9vo5ugHijAzj9t-LdpV6E75oqUUJjxeDVrUEM30absh5cMrbvwdswJt1SylVDpbqfJG3DGsXvJxvRkEZyLgv54h9yGcZV0EkThZXEmElSqNcbah11tN32PoL1qjS6lEavS1PY538GsiXvKlKAZxtgmXKIv3XRsJaLlV5vdJey_bHVIV5pWe4T-uR8qk9PL9QncUb1ReFfbvjVDv_f6xeMt-N5</recordid><startdate>20101006</startdate><enddate>20101006</enddate><creator>Bragg, Fiona</creator><creator>Cromwell, David A</creator><creator>Edozien, Leroy C</creator><creator>Gurol-Urganci, Ipek</creator><creator>Mahmood, Tahir A</creator><creator>Templeton, Allan</creator><creator>van der Meulen, Jan H</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101006</creationdate><title>Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study</title><author>Bragg, Fiona ; Cromwell, David A ; Edozien, Leroy C ; Gurol-Urganci, Ipek ; Mahmood, Tahir A ; Templeton, Allan ; van der Meulen, Jan H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b555t-d4a3a0bfcacf4ea4a7a1f6f50a0f2e32c7218022b245922994825adc8c52329e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Births</topic><topic>Caesarean section</topic><topic>Cesarean section</topic><topic>Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Clinical risk factors</topic><topic>Codes</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>England - epidemiology</topic><topic>Epidemiologic Studies</topic><topic>Ethnic Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetuses</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Minority & ethnic groups</topic><topic>National health services</topic><topic>North-South divide</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pregnancy Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>State Medicine</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Trusts</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bragg, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cromwell, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edozien, Leroy C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurol-Urganci, Ipek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahmood, Tahir A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Templeton, Allan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Meulen, Jan H</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep (ProQuest)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bragg, Fiona</au><au>Cromwell, David A</au><au>Edozien, Leroy C</au><au>Gurol-Urganci, Ipek</au><au>Mahmood, Tahir A</au><au>Templeton, Allan</au><au>van der Meulen, Jan H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2010-10-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>341</volume><issue>7777</issue><spage>818</spage><epage>818</epage><pages>818-818</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-535X</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><coden>BMJOAE</coden><abstract>Objective To determine whether the variation in unadjusted rates of caesarean section derived from routine data in NHS trusts in England can be explained by maternal characteristics and clinical risk factors.Design A cross sectional analysis using routinely collected hospital episode statistics was performed. A multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of women having a caesarean section given their maternal characteristics (age, ethnicity, parity, and socioeconomic deprivation) and clinical risk factors (previous caesarean section, breech presentation, and fetal distress). Adjusted rates of caesarean section for each NHS trust were produced from this model.Setting 146 English NHS trusts.Population Women aged between 15 and 44 years with a singleton birth between 1 January and 31 December 2008.Main outcome measure Rate of caesarean sections per 100 births (live or stillborn).Results Among 620 604 singleton births, 147 726 (23.8%) were delivered by caesarean section. Women were more likely to have a caesarean section if they had had one previously (70.8%) or had a baby with breech presentation (89.8%). Unadjusted rates of caesarean section among the NHS trusts ranged from 13.6% to 31.9%. Trusts differed in their patient populations, but adjusted rates still ranged from 14.9% to 32.1%. Rates of emergency caesarean section varied between trusts more than rates of elective caesarean section.Conclusion Characteristics of women delivering at NHS trusts differ, and comparing unadjusted rates of caesarean section should be avoided. Adjusted rates of caesarean section still vary considerably and attempts to reduce this variation should examine issues linked to emergency caesarean section.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>20926490</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.c5065</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
ispartof | BMJ, 2010-10, Vol.341 (7777), p.818-818 |
issn | 0959-8138 0959-535X 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2950923 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); BMJ journals single titles; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Births Caesarean section Cesarean section Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data Childbirth & labor Classification Clinical risk factors Codes Cross-Sectional Studies England - epidemiology Epidemiologic Studies Ethnic Studies Female Fetuses Health risk assessment Hospitals Humans Medical research Minority & ethnic groups National health services North-South divide Obstetrics Pregnancy Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology Pregnancy Complications - surgery Public health Regression Analysis Risk Factors State Medicine Statistical analysis Trusts Womens health Young Adult |
title | Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T16%3A54%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variation%20in%20rates%20of%20caesarean%20section%20among%20English%20NHS%20trusts%20after%20accounting%20for%20maternal%20and%20clinical%20risk:%20cross%20sectional%20study&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Bragg,%20Fiona&rft.date=2010-10-06&rft.volume=341&rft.issue=7777&rft.spage=818&rft.epage=818&rft.pages=818-818&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft.coden=BMJOAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.c5065&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E25738450%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b555t-d4a3a0bfcacf4ea4a7a1f6f50a0f2e32c7218022b245922994825adc8c52329e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1909600361&rft_id=info:pmid/20926490&rft_jstor_id=25738450&rfr_iscdi=true |