Suchergebnisse

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download

OBJECTIVES. We sought to describe prenatal care use in the United States and in three European countries where accessibility to prenatal care has been reported to be better than it is in the United States. METHODS. We analyzed the 1980 US National Natality Survey, the 1981 French National Natality Survey, a 1979 sample of Danish births, and a survey performed from 1979 to 1980 in one Belgian province. RESULTS. The proportion of women who began prenatal care late (after 15 weeks) is highest in the United States (21.2%) and lowest in France (4.0%). This contrasts with the median number of visits, which is greater in the United States (11) than in Denmark (10) or in France (7). Across all maternal ages, parities, and educational levels, late initiation of prenatal care is more frequent in the United States, and median number of visits in the United States is equal to or higher than that in the other countries. CONCLUSIONS. In countries that offer nearly universal access to prenatal care, women begin care earlier during pregnancy and have fewer visits than women in the United States.

Objective: To explore international variations in the management and survival of extremely low gestational age and birthweight births. Design Area-based prospective cohort of births: Setting 12 regions across Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal and the UK. Participants: 1449 live births and fetal deaths between 22+0 and 25+6 weeks gestation born in 2011–2012. Main outcome measures: Percentage of births; recorded live born; provided antenatal steroids or respiratory support; surviving to discharge (with/without severe morbidities). Results: The percentage of births recorded as live born was consistently low at 22 weeks and consistently high at 25 weeks but varied internationally at 23 weeks for those weighing 500 g and over (range 33%–70%) and at 24 weeks for those under 500 g (range 5%–71%). Antenatal steroids and provision of respiratory support at 22–24 weeks gestation varied between countries, but were consistently high for babies born at 25 weeks. Survival to discharge was universally poor at 22 weeks gestation (0%) and at any gestation with birth weight <500 g, irrespective of treatment provision. In contrast, births at 23 and 24 weeks weighing 500 g and over showed significant international variation in survival (23 weeks: range: 0%–25%; 24 weeks range: 21%–50%), reflecting levels of treatment provision. Conclusions: Wide international variation exists in the management and survival of extremely preterm births at 22–24 weeks gestation. Universally poor outcomes for babies at 22 weeks and for those weighing under 500 g suggest little impact of intervention and support the inclusion of birth weight along with gestational age in ethical decision-making guidelines. ; The research leading to these results received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme ((FP7/2007–2013)) under grant agreement n°259882. Additional funding was received in the following region: France (French Institute of Public Health Research/Institute of Public Health and its partners the French Health Ministry, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, the National Institute of Cancer and the National Solidarity Fund for Autonomy; grant ANR-11-EQPX-0038 from the National Research Agency through the French Equipex Program of Investments in the Future and the PremUp Foundation). UK (funding for The Neonatal Survey from Neonatal Networks for East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber regions). The funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the article for publication. LKS is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Objective Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) creates clinically relevant sub-groups for monitoring caesarean birth rates. This study assesses whether this classification can be derived from routine data in Europe and uses it to analyse national caesarean rates.Design Observational study using routine data.Setting Twenty-seven EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.Population All births at >= 22 weeks of gestational age in 2015.Methods National statistical offices and medical birth registers derived numbers of caesarean births in TGCS groups.Main outcome measures Overall caesarean rate, prevalence and caesarean rates in each of the TGCS groups.Results Of 31 countries, 18 were able to provide data on the TGCS groups, with UK data available only from Northern Ireland. Caesarean birth rates ranged from 16.1 to 56.9%. Countries providing TGCS data had lower caesarean rates than countries without data (25.8% versus 32.9%, P = 0.04). Countries with higher caesarean rates tended to have higher rates in all TGCS groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, however, especially for groups 5 (previous caesarean section), 6, 7 (nulliparous/multiparous breech) and 10 (singleton cephalic preterm). The differences in percentages of abnormal lies, group 9, illustrate potential misclassification arising from unstandardised definitions.Conclusions Although further validation of data quality is needed, using TGCS in Europe provides valuable comparator and baseline data for benchmarking and surveillance. Higher caesarean rates in countries unable to construct the TGCS suggest that effective routine information systems may be an indicator of a country's investment in implementing evidence-based caesarean policies.Tweetable abstract Many European countries can provide Robson's Ten-Group Classification to improve caesarean rate comparisons.

Aggregated data from the Euro-Peristat project can be downloaded from the project's website: www.europeristat.com. A full list of contributors to the European Perinatal Health Report: Health and Care of Pregnant Women and Babies in Europe in 2010 can be found online. ; Background International comparisons of stillbirth allow assessment of variations in clinical practice to reduce mortality. Currently, such comparisons include only stillbirths from 28 or more completed weeks of gestational age, which underestimates the true burden of stillbirth. With increased registration of early stillbirths in high-income countries, we assessed the reliability of including stillbirths before 28 completed weeks in such comparisons. Methods In this population-based study, we used national cohort data from 19 European countries participating in the Euro-Peristat project on livebirths and stillbirths from 22 completed weeks of gestation in 2004, 2010, and 2015. We excluded countries without national data for stillbirths by gestational age in these periods, or where data available were not comparable between 2004 and 2015. We also excluded those countries with fewer than 10 000 births per year because the proportion of stillbirths at 22 weeks to less than 28 weeks of gestation is small. We calculated pooled stillbirth rates using a random-effects model and changes in rates between 2004 and 2015 using risk ratios (RR) by gestational age and country. Findings Stillbirths at 22 weeks to less than 28 weeks of gestation accounted for 32% of all stillbirths in 2015. The pooled stillbirth rate at 24 weeks to less than 28 weeks declined from 0·97 to 0·70 per 1000 births from 2004 to 2015, a reduction of 25% (RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·65–0·85). The pooled stillbirth rate at 22 weeks to less than 24 weeks of gestation in 2015 was 0·53 per 1000 births and did not significantly changed over time (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·80–1·16) although changes varied widely between countries (RRs 0·62–2·09). Wide variation in the percentage of all births occurring at 22 weeks to less than 24 weeks of gestation suggest international differences in ascertainment. Interpretation Present definitions used for international comparisons exclude a third of stillbirths. International consistency of reporting stillbirths at 24 weeks to less than 28 weeks suggests these deaths should be included in routinely reported comparisons. This addition would have a major impact, acknowledging the burden of perinatal death to families, and making international assessments more informative for clinical practice and policy. Ascertainment of fetal deaths at 22 weeks to less than 24 weeks should be stabilised so that all stillbirths from 22 completed weeks of gestation onwards can be reliably compared. Funding EU Union under the framework of the Health Programme and the Bridge Health Project. ; The Euro-Peristat project received funding from the European Union under the framework of the Health Programme (grant numbers: 20101301, 2007114, 2003131) and the Bridge Health Project (665691). LKS is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship. This Article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). ; Peer-reviewed ; Post-print

OBJECTIVE: Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) creates clinically relevant sub‐groups for monitoring caesarean birth rates. This study assesses whether this classification can be derived from routine data in Europe and uses it to analyse national caesarean rates. DESIGN: Observational study using routine data. SETTING: Twenty‐seven EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. POPULATION: All births at ≥22 weeks of gestational age in 2015. METHODS: National statistical offices and medical birth registers derived numbers of caesarean births in TGCS groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall caesarean rate, prevalence and caesarean rates in each of the TGCS groups. RESULTS: Of 31 countries, 18 were able to provide data on the TGCS groups, with UK data available only from Northern Ireland. Caesarean birth rates ranged from 16.1 to 56.9%. Countries providing TGCS data had lower caesarean rates than countries without data (25.8% versus 32.9%, P = 0.04). Countries with higher caesarean rates tended to have higher rates in all TGCS groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, however, especially for groups 5 (previous caesarean section), 6, 7 (nulliparous/multiparous breech) and 10 (singleton cephalic preterm). The differences in percentages of abnormal lies, group 9, illustrate potential misclassification arising from unstandardised definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Although further validation of data quality is needed, using TGCS in Europe provides valuable comparator and baseline data for benchmarking and surveillance. Higher caesarean rates in countries unable to construct the TGCS suggest that effective routine information systems may be an indicator of a country's investment in implementing evidence‐based caesarean policies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Many European countries can provide Robson's Ten‐Group Classification to improve caesarean rate comparisons.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download ; Objective: Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) creates clinically relevant sub-groups for monitoring caesarean birth rates. This study assesses whether this classification can be derived from routine data in Europe and uses it to analyse national caesarean rates. Design: Observational study using routine data. Setting: Twenty-seven EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. Population: All births at ≥22 weeks of gestational age in 2015. Methods: National statistical offices and medical birth registers derived numbers of caesarean births in TGCS groups. Main outcome measures: Overall caesarean rate, prevalence and caesarean rates in each of the TGCS groups. Results: Of 31 countries, 18 were able to provide data on the TGCS groups, with UK data available only from Northern Ireland. Caesarean birth rates ranged from 16.1 to 56.9%. Countries providing TGCS data had lower caesarean rates than countries without data (25.8% versus 32.9%, P = 0.04). Countries with higher caesarean rates tended to have higher rates in all TGCS groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, however, especially for groups 5 (previous caesarean section), 6, 7 (nulliparous/multiparous breech) and 10 (singleton cephalic preterm). The differences in percentages of abnormal lies, group 9, illustrate potential misclassification arising from unstandardised definitions. Conclusions: Although further validation of data quality is needed, using TGCS in Europe provides valuable comparator and baseline data for benchmarking and surveillance. Higher caesarean rates in countries unable to construct the TGCS suggest that effective routine information systems may be an indicator of a country's investment in implementing evidence-based caesarean policies. Tweetable abstract: Many European countries can provide Robson's Ten-Group Classification to ...

Objective Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) creates clinically relevant sub‐groups for monitoring caesarean birth rates. This study assesses whether this classification can be derived from routine data in Europe and uses it to analyse national caesarean rates. Design Observational study using routine data. Setting Twenty‐seven EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. Population All births at ≥22 weeks of gestational age in 2015. Methods National statistical offices and medical birth registers derived numbers of caesarean births in TGCS groups. Main outcome measures Overall caesarean rate, prevalence and caesarean rates in each of the TGCS groups. Results Of 31 countries, 18 were able to provide data on the TGCS groups, with UK data available only from Northern Ireland. Caesarean birth rates ranged from 16.1 to 56.9%. Countries providing TGCS data had lower caesarean rates than countries without data (25.8% versus 32.9%, P = 0.04). Countries with higher caesarean rates tended to have higher rates in all TGCS groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, however, especially for groups 5 (previous caesarean section), 6, 7 (nulliparous/multiparous breech) and 10 (singleton cephalic preterm). The differences in percentages of abnormal lies, group 9, illustrate potential misclassification arising from unstandardised definitions. Conclusions Although further validation of data quality is needed, using TGCS in Europe provides valuable comparator and baseline data for benchmarking and surveillance. Higher caesarean rates in countries unable to construct the TGCS suggest that effective routine information systems may be an indicator of a country's investment in implementing evidence‐based caesarean policies. Tweetable abstract Many European countries can provide Robson's Ten‐Group Classification to improve caesarean rate comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: To generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Health facilities from 43 countries. POPULATION/SAMPLE: Thirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty-four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10,045,875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing. METHODS: We hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical-obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three-step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi-country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate. RESULTS: According to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C-Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C-Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case-mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e-calculator to facilitate use of C-Model (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/c-model/en/). CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C-Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems.

ObjectiveTo generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingHealth facilities from 43 countries. Population/SampleThirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty-four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10045875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing. MethodsWe hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical-obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three-step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi-country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models. Main outcome measuresArea under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate. ResultsAccording to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C-Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C-Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case-mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e-calculator to facilitate use of C-Model (). ConclusionsThis article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C-Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS. Tweetable abstractThe C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems. Tweetable abstract The C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems. ; NICHD NIH HHS ; World Health Organization ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Social Med, Av Bandeirantes, BR-3900 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil ; WHO, World Bank Special Programme Res Dev & Res Traini, UNDP UNFPA UNICEF WHO, Dept Reprod Hlth & Res, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland ; Univ Paris 05, Sorbonne Paris Cite, UMR 216, Inst Dev Res, Paris, France ; WHO Reg Off Amer, Women & Reprod Hlth CLAP WR, Latin Amer Ctr Perinatol, Montevideo, Uruguay ; Emory Univ, Rollins Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA ; Paris Descartes Univ, Ctr Epidemiol & Biostat, Obstetr Perinatal & Pediat Epidemiol Res Team, Inserm U1153, Paris, France ; Natl Inst Publ Hlth, Ctr Populat Hlth Res, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico ; Univ Technol, Fac Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Natl Ctr Child Hlth & Dev, Dept Hlth Policy, Tokyo, Japan ; Ctr Rosarino Estudios Perinat, Rosario, Argentina ; Lindsay Stewart R&D Ctr, Off Res & Clin Audit, Royal Coll Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, England ; London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Hlth Serv Res & Policy, London WC1, England ; Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Xinhua Hosp, Shanghai Key Lab Childrens Environ Hlth,Minist Ed, Shanghai 200030, Peoples R China ; Univ Estadual Campinas, Sch Med Sci, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Campinas, SP, Brazil ; Family Hlth Bur, Minist Hlth, Colombo, Sri Lanka ; Fiocruz MS, ENSP, BR-21045900 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil ; Natl Inst Hlth & Welf, Helsinki, Finland ; Univ Tokyo, Grad Sch Med, Dept Paediat, Tokyo, Japan ; Bayer Krankenhausgesellschaft, Bayer Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualitatssicherun Stati, Munich, Germany ; Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Khon, Kaen, Thailand ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, BR-14049 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil ; Minist Sante, Direct Sante Famille, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso ; Univ Washington, Inst Hlth Metr & Evaluat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA ; Univ Mongolia, Hlth Sci, Sch Publ Hlth, Ulaanbaatar, Mongol Peo Rep ; GLIDE Tech Cooperat & Res, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Paediat, BR-14049 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil ; Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol & Global Hlth Sci, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA ; Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat & Demog, Khon Kaen, Thailand ; Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Sch Med Sao Paulo, Dept Obstet, Sao Paulo, Brazil ; Inter Amer Dev Bank, Social Protect & Hlth Div, Mexico City, DF, Mexico ; Fortis Mem Res Inst, Gurgaon, Haryana, India ; Hosp Nacl Itaugua, Itaugua, Paraguay ; Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Sch Med Sao Paulo, Dept Obstet, Sao Paulo, Brazil ; NICHD NIH HHS: T32 HD052460 ; World Health Organization: 001 ; Web of Science

ObjectiveTo generate a global reference for caesarean section (CS) rates at health facilities. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingHealth facilities from 43 countries. Population/SampleThirty eight thousand three hundred and twenty-four women giving birth from 22 countries for model building and 10045875 women giving birth from 43 countries for model testing. MethodsWe hypothesised that mathematical models could determine the relationship between clinical-obstetric characteristics and CS. These models generated probabilities of CS that could be compared with the observed CS rates. We devised a three-step approach to generate the global benchmark of CS rates at health facilities: creation of a multi-country reference population, building mathematical models, and testing these models. Main outcome measuresArea under the ROC curves, diagnostic odds ratio, expected CS rate, observed CS rate. ResultsAccording to the different versions of the model, areas under the ROC curves suggested a good discriminatory capacity of C-Model, with summary estimates ranging from 0.832 to 0.844. The C-Model was able to generate expected CS rates adjusted for the case-mix of the obstetric population. We have also prepared an e-calculator to facilitate use of C-Model (). ConclusionsThis article describes the development of a global reference for CS rates. Based on maternal characteristics, this tool was able to generate an individualised expected CS rate for health facilities or groups of health facilities. With C-Model, obstetric teams, health system managers, health facilities, health insurance companies, and governments can produce a customised reference CS rate for assessing use (and overuse) of CS. Tweetable abstractThe C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems. Tweetable abstract The C-Model provides a customized benchmark for caesarean section rates in health facilities and systems. ; NICHD NIH HHS ; World Health Organization ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Social Med, Av Bandeirantes, BR-3900 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil ; WHO, World Bank Special Programme Res Dev & Res Traini, UNDP UNFPA UNICEF WHO, Dept Reprod Hlth & Res, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland ; Univ Paris 05, Sorbonne Paris Cite, UMR 216, Inst Dev Res, Paris, France ; WHO Reg Off Amer, Women & Reprod Hlth CLAP WR, Latin Amer Ctr Perinatol, Montevideo, Uruguay ; Emory Univ, Rollins Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA ; Paris Descartes Univ, Ctr Epidemiol & Biostat, Obstetr Perinatal & Pediat Epidemiol Res Team, Inserm U1153, Paris, France ; Natl Inst Publ Hlth, Ctr Populat Hlth Res, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico ; Univ Technol, Fac Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Natl Ctr Child Hlth & Dev, Dept Hlth Policy, Tokyo, Japan ; Ctr Rosarino Estudios Perinat, Rosario, Argentina ; Lindsay Stewart R&D Ctr, Off Res & Clin Audit, Royal Coll Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, England ; London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Hlth Serv Res & Policy, London WC1, England ; Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Xinhua Hosp, Shanghai Key Lab Childrens Environ Hlth,Minist Ed, Shanghai 200030, Peoples R China ; Univ Estadual Campinas, Sch Med Sci, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Campinas, SP, Brazil ; Family Hlth Bur, Minist Hlth, Colombo, Sri Lanka ; Fiocruz MS, ENSP, BR-21045900 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil ; Natl Inst Hlth & Welf, Helsinki, Finland ; Univ Tokyo, Grad Sch Med, Dept Paediat, Tokyo, Japan ; Bayer Krankenhausgesellschaft, Bayer Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualitatssicherun Stati, Munich, Germany ; Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Khon, Kaen, Thailand ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, BR-14049 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil ; Minist Sante, Direct Sante Famille, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso ; Univ Washington, Inst Hlth Metr & Evaluat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA ; Univ Mongolia, Hlth Sci, Sch Publ Hlth, Ulaanbaatar, Mongol Peo Rep ; GLIDE Tech Cooperat & Res, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil ; Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Dept Paediat, BR-14049 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil ; Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol & Global Hlth Sci, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA ; Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat & Demog, Khon Kaen, Thailand ; Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Sch Med Sao Paulo, Dept Obstet, Sao Paulo, Brazil ; Inter Amer Dev Bank, Social Protect & Hlth Div, Mexico City, DF, Mexico ; Fortis Mem Res Inst, Gurgaon, Haryana, India ; Hosp Nacl Itaugua, Itaugua, Paraguay ; Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Sch Med Sao Paulo, Dept Obstet, Sao Paulo, Brazil ; NICHD NIH HHS: T32 HD052460 ; World Health Organization: 001 ; Web of Science