Estimating Educational Differences in Low-Risk Cesarean Section Delivery: A Multilevel Modeling Approach

Article

Abstract

U.S. rates of cesarean section, and in particular, low-risk cesarean section (LRC) births rose dramatically across the late 1990s and early 2000s, and have since remained high. Although previous research explores how trends in LRC vary between states and across maternal characteristics, within-state heterogeneity has not yet been accounted for, nor has the extent to which maternal and county characteristics might interact to shape the likelihood of a LRC birth. Using U.S. county-level birth data for years 2008–2010 from the restricted National Vital Statistics Systems Cohort Linked Birth-Infant Death Files and the Area Health Resource Files, I conduct race-stratified multilevel analyses to explore the association between the mother’s education, the income of the county in which she gives birth, and the odds of LRC delivery. I find that regardless of race/ethnicity, less education at the individual level and lower income at the county level are associated with higher odds of LRC delivery. There are also persistent racial disparities in these relationships. Non-Hispanic black mothers have the highest overall odds of LRC delivery, yet the effect of both education and county income is greatest for non-Hispanic white mothers. The results highlight the importance of analyzing both individual resources and contextual effects of the county when assessing birthing processes, as both contribute to a mother’s access to and knowledge of natal care.

Keywords

United States C-sections Fertility Education Contextual effects BID files AHRF 

Supplementary material

11113_2017_9452_MOESM1_ESM.doc (622 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 622 kb)

References

  1. Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002). Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Affairs, 21(2), 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Area Health Resources Files (AHRF) 2015–2016. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Workforce, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  3. Baicker, K., Buckles, K. S., & Chandra, A. (2006). Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Affairs, 25(5), w355–w367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, P.S. (2005). Complications of Cesarean Deliveries. Medscape PN 04-2-910-809.Google Scholar
  5. Bettes, B. A., Coleman, V. H., Zinberg, S., Spong, C. Y., Portnoy, B., DeVoto, E., et al. (2007). Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician–gynecologists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boardman, J. D., Powers, D. A., Padilla, Y. C., & Hummer, R. A. (2002). Low birth weight, social factors, and developmental outcomes among children in the United States. Demography, 39(2), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridges, K. (2011). Reproducing race: An ethnography of pregnancy as a site of racialization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J. M., Rouse, D. J., & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(3), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, C. (2016). What’s Behind San Diego County’s Alarmingly High C-Section Rates? KPBS. Retrieved from http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/apr/28/whats-behind-san-diego-countys-alarmingly-high-c-s/.
  10. Epstein, A. J., & Nicholson, S. (2009). The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: An application to cesarean sections. Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1126–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finch, B. K. (2003). Socioeconomic gradients and low birth-weight: Empirical and policy considerations. Health services research, 38, 1819–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gálvez, A. (2011). Patient citizens, immigrant mothers: Mexican women, public prenatal care, and the birth weight paradox. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, A. (2006). Multilevel (hierarchical) modeling: what it can and cannot do. Technometrics, 48(3), 432–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons, L., Belizán, J. M., Lauer, J. A., Betrán, A. P., Merialdi, M., & Althabe, F. (2010). The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report, 30, 1–31.Google Scholar
  15. Gortmaker, S. L., & Wise, P. H. (1997). The first injustice: Socioeconomic disparities, health services technology, and infant mortality. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haelle, Tara. (2016). Your Biggest C-Section Risk May be Your Hospital. Consumer Reports. Retrieved from http://www.consumerreports.org/doctors-hospitals/your-biggest-c-section-risk-may-be-your-hospital/.
  17. Häger, R. M., Daltveit, A. K., Hofoss, D., Nilsen, S. T., Kolaas, T., Øian, P., et al. (2004). Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 190(2), 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton, B., Martin, J., Osterman, M., Curtin, S., & Matthews, T. J. (2015). Births: Final Data for 2014. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 65(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. Kozhimannil, K. B., Law, M. R., & Virnig, B. A. (2013). Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Affairs, 32(3), 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lake, N. (2012, November–December). Labor, Interrupted. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/labor-interrupted.
  21. Lu, M. C., & Halfon, N. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes: a life-course perspective. Maternal and child health journal, 7(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu, M. C., Kotelchuck, M., Hogan, V., Jones, L., Wright, K., & Halfon, N. (2010). Closing the black-white gap in birth outcomes: A life-course approach. Ethnicity & Disease, 20, S2.Google Scholar
  23. McCourt, C., Weaver, J., Statham, H., Beake, S., Gamble, J., & Creedy, D. K. (2007). Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth, 34(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meit, M., Knudson, A., Gilbert, T., Yu, A. T. C., Tanenbaum, E., Ormson, E., et al. (2014). The 2014 update of the rural-urban chartbook. Bethesda: Rural Health Reform Policy Research Center.Google Scholar
  25. Miesnik, S. R., & Reale, B. J. (2007). A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 36(6), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molina, G., Weiser, T. G., Lipsitz, S. R., Esquivel, M. M., Uribe-Leitz, T., Azad, T., et al. (2015). Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA, 314(21), 2263–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, T. (2016). Cut it out: The C-section epidemic in America. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  28. Morris, T., & Robinson, J. H. (2017). Forced and coerced cesarean sections in the United States. Contexts, 16(2), 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murthy, K., Grobman, W. A., Lee, T. A., & Holl, J. L. (2007). Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110(6), 1264–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS]. [Linked Births Infant Deaths] [2007–2013], as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program.Google Scholar
  31. Osterman, M. J., & Martin, J. A. (2014). Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 63(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Potter, J. E., Berquó, E., Perpétuo, I. H., Leal, O. F., Hopkins, K., Souza, M. R., et al. (2001). Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ, 323(7322), 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rackin, H. M., & Bachrach, C. A. (2016). Assessing the predictive value of fertility expectations through a cognitive-social model. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(4), 527–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rehavi, M. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2013). Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth. NBER Working Paper 19242.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, D. E. (1999). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenberg, T. (2016). Reducing Unnecessary C-Section Births. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/arsdarian-cutting-the-number-of-c-section-births/?_r=0.
  37. Roth, L. M. (2016). What’s the Rush? Tort laws and elective early-term induction of labor. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 57(4), 486–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roth, L. M., & Henley, M. M. (2012). Unequal motherhood: racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cesarean sections in the United States. Social Problems, 59(2), 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuitemaker, N., Roosmalen, J., Dekker, G., Dongen, P., Geijn, H., & Gravenhorst, J. B. (1997). Maternal mortality after cesarean section in The Netherlands. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 76(4), 332–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shearer, E. L. (1993). Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs. Social Science and Medicine, 37(10), 1223–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spong, C. Y., Berghella, V., Wenstrom, K. D., Mercer, B. M., & Saade, G. R. (2012). Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver national institute of child health and human development, society for maternal-fetal medicine, and American college of obstetricians and gynecologists workshop. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 120(5), 1181.Google Scholar
  42. Tenkorang, E. Y. (2016). Type of health facility and utilization of antenatal care services among Ghanaian women. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(5), 631–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tropf, F. C., & Mandemakers, J. J. (2017). Is the association between education and fertility postponement causal? The role of family background factors. Demography, 54, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tussing, A. D., & Wojtowycz, M. A. (1997). Malpractice, defensive medicine, and obstetric behavior. Medical Care, 35(2), 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. Census Bureau [Census]. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (2007–2013). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/.
  46. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [HHS]. (2010). Healthy people 2020.Google Scholar
  47. Wax, J. R., Cartin, A., Pinette, M. G., & Blackstone, J. (2005). Patient choice cesarean—the Maine experience. Birth, 32(3), 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weaver, J. J., Statham, H., & Richards, M. (2007). Are there “unnecessary” cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth, 34(1), 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang, Y. T., Mello, M. M., Subramanian, S. V., & Studdert, D. M. (2009). Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Medical Care, 47(2), 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Population Program, Institute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations