Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do caesarean section rates ‘catch-up’? Evidence from 14 European countries

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the catch up effect of Caesarean Section (CS) birth rates across 14 European countries during 1980–2009 for the first time. The panel stationary test incorporating multiple structural breaks and cross-sectional dependence was used to provide reliable evidence for the existence of the catch up effect of CS birth rates. Our results suggested that the CS birth rates in 14 European countries have mostly exhibited signs of convergence through a steady upward trend from 1980 to 2009. Policymakers in low CS birth rate countries should be cautioned concerning the negative impact of the increase of CS births.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UNICEF, WHO, UNFPA (1997) Guidelines for monitoring the availability and use of obstetric services. http://www.childinfo.org/files/maternal_mortality_finalgui.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2012

  2. World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNICEF and AMDD (2009) Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gibbin L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F (2010) The global numbers and costs of additional needed and unnecessary Caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as barrier to universal convergence. World Health Report. Background Paper. No. 30

  4. Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, Merialdi M, Souza JP, Wojdyla D, Widmer M, Carroli G, Torloni MR, Langer A, Narváez A, Velasco A, Faúndes A, Acosta A, Valladares E, Romero M, Zavaleta N, Reynoso S, Bataglia V (2009) WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Heal 29(6):18. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol 21(2):98–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wylie B, Mirza FG (2008) Cesarean delivery in the developing world. Clin Perinatol 35(3):571–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Althabe F, Sosa G, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E (2006) Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 33(4):270–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stanton CK, Holtz SA (2006) Levels and trends in cesarean birth in the developing world. Stud Fam Plan 37(1):41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Feng XL, Guo Y, Ronsmans C (2012) Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ 90(1):30–39A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Festin MR, Laopaiboon M, Pattanittum P, Ewens MR, Henderson-Smart DJ, Crowther CA (2009) Caesarean section in four South East Asian countries: reasons for, rates, associated care practices and health outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 9(9):17. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-9-17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ba’aqeel H (2009) Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Annu Saudi Med 29(3):179–183

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ravindran F (2008) Rising caesarean section rates in public hospitals in Malaysia 2006. Med J Malays 63(5):434–435

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grytten J, Monkerud L, Hagen T, Sørensen R, Eskild A, Skau I (2011) The impact of hospital revenue on the increase in Caesarean section in Norway. A panel data analysis of hospitals 1976-2005. BMC Heal Serv Res 11:267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brick A, Layte R (2011) Exploring trends in the rate of Caesarean section in Ireland 1999–2007. Econ Soc Rev 42(4):383–406

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Wojdyla D (2010) Determinants of caesarean section rates in developed countries: supply, demand and opportunities for control. World Health Report Background Paper, No 29

  16. Kim B (2010) Do doctors induce demand? Pac Econ Rev 15(4):554–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Triunfo P, Rossi M (2009) The effect of physicians’ remuneration system on the Caesarean section rate: the Uruguayan case. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 9(4):333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grant D (2009) Physician financial incentives and cesarean delivery: new conclusions from the healthcare cost and utilization project. J Heal Econ 28:244–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xirasagar S, Lin HC, Liu TC (2006) Do group practices have lower caesarean rates than solo practice obstetric clinics? Evidence from Taiwan. Health Policy Plan 21(4):319–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grant D (2005) Explaining source of payment differences in US cesarean rates: why do privately insured mothers receive more cesareans than mothers who are not privately insured? Health Care Manag Sci 8:5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Murray SF, Elston MA (2005) The promotion of private health insurance and its implications for the social organization of healthcare: a case study of private sector obstetric in Chile. Soc Health Illn 27:701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Potter JE, Berquó E, Perpétuo IHO, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, Formiga MC (2001) Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. Br Med J 323(7322):1155–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Spetz J, Smith MW, Ennis SF (2001) Physician incentives and timing of cesarean sections: evidence from California. Med Care 39(6):536–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Souza IP, Gulmezoglu AM, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon G, Fawole B, Ruyan P (2010) Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term material outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Med 8:71. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P (2008) Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 11(1):97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Villar J, Valladares D, Wojdyla N, Zavaleta G, Carroli A, Velazco A, Shah L, Campodonico V, Bataglia A, Faundes A, Langer A, Narvaez A, Donner A, Romero M, Reynoso S, de Padua KS, Giordano D, Kublick M, Acosta A (2006) Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America. Lancet 367(9525):1819–1829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sakala C (2006) Vaginal or cesarean birth? A systematic review to determine what is at stake for mothers and babies. Childbirth Connection. http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/vaginalorcesareanbirth.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2012

  28. Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (1992) Convergence. J Polit Econ 100:223–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gilardi F (2012) Methods for the analysis of policy interdependence. In: Engeli I, Rothmayr C (eds) Comparative policy studies. Conceptual and methodological challenge, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schmitt C, Starke P (2011) Explaining convergence of OECD welfare states: a conditional approach. J Eur Soc Policy 21(2):120–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuitto K, Jahn D, Dupont N (2011) Convergence, divergence or persistence of welfare policy institutions in the enlarged European Union? 6th ECPR General Conference, Reyklavik

  32. Nieswiadomy M, Strazicich MG (2004) Are political freedoms converging? Econ Inq 42:323–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Quah DT (1993) Empirical cross-section dynamics in economic growth. Eur Econ Rev 37:426–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Carlino GA, Mills LO (1993) Are U.S. regional incomes converging? A time series analysis. J Monet Econ 32:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bernard AB, Durlauf SN (1995) Convergence in international output. J Appl Econ 10:97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Carrion-i-Silivestre JL, German-Soto V (2009) Panel data stochastic convergence analysis of the Mexican regions. Empir Econ 37:303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tomljanovich M, Vogelsang TJ (2002) Are U.S. regions converging? Using new econometric methods to examine old issues. Empir Econ 27:49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, del Barrio T, López-Bazo E (2005) Breaking the panels. An application to the GDP per capita. Econ J 8:159–175

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66:47–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu J, Wu S, Zidek JV (1997) On segmented multivariate regressions. Stat Sin 7:497–525

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No 435

  42. McKee M, MacLehose L, Nolte E (2004) Health policy and European union enlargement. Open University Press, Berkshire

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ma KM, Norton EC, Lee SY (2012) Declining fertility and the use of cesarean delivery: evidence from a population-based study in Taiwan. Heal Serv Res 45(5):1360–1375

    Google Scholar 

  44. Klasen S, Launov A (2006) Analysis of the determinants of fertility decline in the Czech Republic. J Popul Econ 19:25–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S (2004) Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83:1178–1183

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lin HC, Xirasagar S (2005) Maternal age and the likelihood of a maternal request for cesarean delivery: a 5-year population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):848–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ibraimova A, Akkazieva B, Ibraimov A, Manzhieva E, Rechel B (2011) Kyrgyzstan: health system review. Health Syst Transit 13(3):1–152

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tragakes E, Brigis G, Karaskevica J, Rurane A, Stuburs A, Zusmane E, Avdeeva O, Schäfer M (2008) Latvia: health system review. Health Syst Transit 10(2):1–253

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lekhan V, Rudiy V, Richardson E (2010) Ukraine: health system review. Health Syst Trans 12(8):1–183

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kringeland T, Daltveit AK, Møller A (2009) What characterizes women in Norway who wish to have a caesarean section? Scand J Public Health 37(4):364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hildingsson I, Rådestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenström U (2002) Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 109(6):618–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bergholt T, O’Østberg B, Legarth J, Weber T (2004) Danish obstetricians’personal preference and general attitude to elective caesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83:262–266

    Google Scholar 

  53. Backe B, Salversen KA, Sviggum O (2002) Norwegian obstetricians prefer vaginal route of delivery. Lancet 359(9306):629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, Grandjean H, Gratia P, Guaschino S, Heyl W, Taylor D, Cuttini M (2006) Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG Int J Obstet 113(6):647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Monari F, Mario SD, Facchinetty F, Basevi V (2008) Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward cesarean section. Birth 35(2):129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Fanara G, Albiero A, Priolo AM, Giacobbe A, Franchi M (2008) Caesarean section on request: are there loco-regional factors influencing maternal choice? An Italy experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(4):382–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Fanara G, Settineri S, Triolo O, Giacobbe A (2006) Women’s preference on mode of delivery in Southern Italy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(6):694–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Donati S, Grandolfo ME, Andreozzi S (2003) Do Italian mothers prefer cesarean delivery? Birth 30(2):89–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McDaid D, Wiley M, Maresso A, Mossialos E (2009) Ireland: health system review. Health Syst Transit 11(4):1–268

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schmid A, Cacace M, Götze R, Rothgang H (2010) Explaining health care system change: problem pressure and the emergence of ‘Hybrid’ health care systems. J Health Polit Policy Law 35(4):455–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lo Scalzo A, Donatini A, Orzella L, Cicchetti A, Profi li S, Maresso A (2009) Italy: health system review. Health Syst Transit 11(6):1–216

    Google Scholar 

  62. Barros P, Machado S, Simões J (2011) Portugal: health system review. Health Syst Transit 13(4):1–156

    Google Scholar 

  63. D’Souza R, Arulkumaran S (2013) To ‘C’ or not to ‘C’?/Caesarean delivery upon maternal request: a review of facts, figures and guidelines. J Perinat Med 41(1):5–15

    Google Scholar 

  64. National Institutes of Health (2006) NIH State of the science Conference statement on Cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consens Sci Statements 23(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  65. Narayan PK (2007) Do health care expenditure ‘catch-op’? evidence from OECD countries. Heal Econ 16:993–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Senior Citizen Service Management, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, 193, Sec. 1, Sanmin Road, Taichung, 40343, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Wen-Yi Chen

Authors
  1. Wen-Yi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Yi Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, WY. Do caesarean section rates ‘catch-up’? Evidence from 14 European countries. Health Care Manag Sci 16, 328–340 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-013-9232-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-013-9232-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation