Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorTeixeira, C
dc.creatorCorreia, S
dc.creatorBarros, H
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour. Methods: As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Results: The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present]. Conclusions:Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications.
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Res Notes, vol. 6(1), p. 214
dc.subjectCaesarean section
dc.subjectHealth care services
dc.subjectInduction of labour
dc.subjectWomen’s health
dc.titleRisk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference
dc.typeArtigo em Revista Científica Internacional
dc.contributor.uportoInstituto de Saúde Pública
Appears in Collections:ISPUP - Artigo em Revista Científica Internacional

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
TeixeiraC2013.pdf279.24 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.