Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 22–28 | Cite as

Maternal, Care Provider, and Institutional-Level Risk Factors for Early Term Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery: A Population-Based Cohort Study

  • Jennifer A. HutcheonEmail author
  • K. S. Joseph
  • Brooke Kinniburgh
  • Lily Lee


To identify maternal, care provider, and institutional-level risk factors for early term (37–38 weeks) elective repeat cesarean delivery in a population-based cohort. Retrospective cohort study of women in the British Columbia (BC) Perinatal Data Registry, BC, Canada, 2008–2011, with an elective repeat cesarean delivery at term. Absolute percent differences (risk differences) in early term delivery rates were calculated according to maternal characteristics, type of care provider, calendar time (day of the week, time of year), and annual institutional obstetrical volume. Of the 7,687 elective repeat cesareans at term in BC, 55 % occurred before 39 + 0 weeks. Early term delivery was significantly more common with multiple previous cesareans [8.2 percentage points (95 % CI 5.5, 10.9) for 2 previous cesareans, 11.3 (95 % CI 5.1, 17.4) for 3 or more previous cesareans], obesity [6.7 percentage points (95 % CI 1.6, 11.7)], and a hospital obstetrical volume <2,500 deliveries per year. Type of care provider and calendar time were not significant risk factors for early term delivery. Early term elective repeat cesarean was common across a wide range of maternal, care provider, and institutional characteristics, suggesting that most obstetrical care settings would benefit from quality-improvement programs to reduce elective repeat cesarean deliveries before 39 weeks. A better understanding of the risks and benefits of early term delivery among obese women and women with multiple previous cesareans is needed given the higher rates of early term delivery observed in these women.


Cesarean section Repeat Term birth Epidemiologic determinants Health services Maternal 


  1. 1.
    Barber, E. L., Lundsberg, L. S., Belanger, K., Pettker, C. M., Funai, E. F., & Illuzzi, J. L. (2011). Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 118, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joint Commission National Quality Measures. (2011). Specifications manual for joint commission national quality measures (v2011A). Available from:
  3. 3.
    Hansen, A. K., Wisborg, K., Uldbjerg, N., & Henriksen, T. B. (2008). Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: cohort study. British Medical Journal, 336, 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tita, A. T., Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Lai, Y., Leveno, K. J., Varner, M. W., et al. (2009). Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrison, J. J., Rennie, J. M., & Milton, P. J. (1995). Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: Influence of timing of elective cesarean section. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 102, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oshiro, B. T., Henry, E., Wilson, J., Branch, D. W., & Varner, M. W. (2009). Decreasing elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation in an integrated health care system. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 113, 804–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilmink, F. A., Hukkelhoven, C. W., Lunshof, S., Mol, B. W., & van der Post, J. A. (2010). Papatsonis DN. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 weeks of gestation: A 7-year retrospective analysis of a national registry. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 202, 250 e1–250 e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yee, W., Amin, H., & Wood, S. (2008). Elective cesarean delivery, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and neonatal respiratory distress. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 111, 823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2007). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394, December 2007. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstetrics and Gynecology 110, 1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1992). Fetal maturity assessment prior to elective repeat cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 38, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bates, E., Rouse, D. J., Mann, M. L., Chapman, V., Carlo, W. A., & Tita, A. T. (2010). Neonatal outcomes after demonstrated fetal lung maturity before 39 weeks of gestation. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116, 1288–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    British Columbia Reproductive Care Program. (2003). British Columbia perinatal database registry overview, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perinatal Services British Columbia. (2011). Pregnancy outcomes of women with a previous cesarean delivery in British Columbia, Canada, 20012010, Perinatal Services BC Surveillance Special Report, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delaney, M., Roggensack, A., Leduc, D. C., Ballermann, C., Biringer, A., Delaney, M., et al. (2008). Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at 41 + 0 to 42 + 0 weeks. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 30, 800–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Axelson, O., Fredriksson, M., & Ekberg, K. (1994). Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenland, S. (1987). Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology, 125, 761–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterne, J. A., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., et al. (2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. British Medical Journal, 338, b2393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salihu, H. M., Dunlop, A. L., Hedayatzadeh, M., Alio, A. P., Kirby, R. S., & Alexander, G. R. (2007). Extreme obesity and risk of stillbirth among black and white gravidas. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110, 552–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caughey, A. B., Shipp, T. D., Repke, J. T., Zelop, C. M., Cohen, A., & Lieberman, E. (1999). Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 872–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hutcheon, J. A. et al. (2012). Maternal and neonatal risks following emergency-timing repeat cesarean delivery (abstract). In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the society for paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit (

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer A. Hutcheon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • K. S. Joseph
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Brooke Kinniburgh
    • 2
  • Lily Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, BC Children’s & Women’s HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Perinatal Services British Columbia, Provincial Health Services AuthorityVancouverCanada
  3. 3.School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations