High cesarean prevalence in a national population-based study in Brazil: the role of private practice

References

• 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;33:270–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367:1819–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335(7628):1025–35.
   Google Scholar
• Editorial. What is the right number of caesarean sections? Lancet. 1997;349:815.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436–7. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wylie BJ, Mirza FG. Cesarean delivery in the developing world. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35:571–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Uma análise dos nascimentos no Brasil e regiões. Brasil, 2004. Available online at: http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/saude/Gestor/visualizar_texto.cfm?idtxt=24455 (accessed July 02, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). Health service coverage. Available online at: http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html (accessed June 30, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Kac G, Silveira EA, Oliveira LC, Araújo DMR, Souza EB. Factors associated to cesarean sections and abortions in women selected from a health clinic in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Bras Saude Mat Infant. 2007;7:271–80.
   Google Scholar
• Kabir AA, Pridjian G, Steinmann WC, Herrera EA, Khan MM. Racial differences in cesareans: an analysis of U.S. 2001 National Inpatient Sample Data. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:710–18.
   Google Scholar
• Qublan H, Alghoweri A, Al-Taani M, Abu-Khait S, Abu-Salem A, Merhej A. Cesarean section rate: the effect of age and parity. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2002;21:22–5.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser PS, Kirby RS. Obesity as a risk factor for cesarean in a low risk population. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:39–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lialios G, Kaponis A, Adonakis G. Maternal age as an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;67:187–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tamim H, El-Chemaly SY, Nassar AH, Aaraj AM, Campbell OMR, Kaddour AA, Cesarean delivery among nulliparous women in Beirut: assessing predictors in nine hospitals. Birth. 2007;34:14–20.
   Google Scholar
• D'Orsi E, Chor D, Giffin K, Angulo-Tuesta A, Barbosa GP, Gama AS, Factors associated with cesarean sections in a public hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2006;22:2067–78.
   Google Scholar
• Seshadri L, Mukherjee B. A predictive model for cesarean section in low risk pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89:94–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford J, Grewal J, Mikolajczyk R, Meikle S, Zhang J. Primary cesarean delivery among parous women in the United States, 1990–2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1235–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesaroni G, Forastiere F, Perucci CA. Are cesarean deliveries more likely for poorly educated parents? A brief report from Italy. Birth. 2008;35:241–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young TK, Woodmansee B. Factors that are associated with cesarean delivery in a large private practice: the importance of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:312–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministério da Saúde. Pesquisa Nacional de Demografia e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher (PNDS) 2006, Brasil. Available online at: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/pnds/img/relatorio_final_pnds2006.pdf. (accessed June 27, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Freitas PF, Drachler ML, Leite JC, Grassi PR. Social inequalities in cesarean section rates in primiparae, Southern Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2005;39:761–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva LM, Silva RA, Silva AAM, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Racial inequalities and perinatal health in the southeast region of Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40:1187–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faúndes A, Padua KS, Osis MJ, Cecatti JG, Sousa MH. Brazilian women and physicians' viewpoints on their preferred route of delivery. Rev Saude Publica. 2004;38:488–94.
   Google Scholar
• Salvador J, Cano-Serral G, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Llandonosa A, Borrell C. Inequalities in caesarean section: influence of the type of maternity care and social class in an area with a national health system. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63:259–61.
   Google Scholar
• Béhague DP. Beyond the simple economics of cesarean section birthing: women's resistance to social inequality. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2002;26:473–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruk ME, Galea S, Prescott M, Freedman LP. Health care financing and utilization of maternal health services in developing countries. Health Policy Plan. 2007;22:303–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant D. Physician financial incentives and cesarean delivery: new conclusions from the healthcare cost and utilization project. J Health Econ. 2009;28:244–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo JC, Financial incentives do not always work – an example of cesarean sections in Taiwan. Health Policy. 2008;88:121–9.
   Google Scholar
• Carr M, Riesco MLG. Rekindling of nurse-midwifery in Brazil: public policy and childbirth trends. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2007;52:406–11.
   Google Scholar
• Althabe F, Belizán JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S, Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1921–2.
   Google Scholar