BMJ 2000;321:137-141 ( 15 July )

Papers

Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study

Editorial by King

Christine L Roberts, research director, ^a Sally Tracy, senior research midwife, ^b Brian Peat, staff specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology. ^c

^a NSW Centre for Perinatal Health Services Research, School of Population Health and Health Services Research, University of Sydney 2006, Australia, ^b Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, University of Technology, Sydney 2007, Australia, ^c King George V Memorial Hospital for Mothers and Babies, Camperdown 2050, Australia

Correspondence to: C L Roberts christiner{at}pub.health.usyd.edu.au

Objective: To compare the risk profile of women receiving public and private obstetric care and to compare the rates of obstetric intervention among women at low risk in these groups.
Design: Population based descriptive study.
Setting: New South Wales, Australia.
Subjects: All 171 157 women having a live baby during 1996 and 1997.
Interventions: Epidural, augmentation or induction of labour, episiotomy, and births by forceps, vacuum, or caesarean section.
Main outcome measures: Risk profile of public and private patients, intervention rates, and the accumulation of interventions by both patient and hospital classification (public or private).
Results: Overall, the frequency of women classified as low risk was similar (48%) among those choosing private obstetric care and those receiving standard care in a public hospital. Among low risk women, rates of obstetric intervention were highest in private patients in private hospitals, lowest in public patients, and generally intermediate for private patients in public hospitals. Among primiparas at low risk, 34% of private patients in private hospitals had a forceps or vacuum delivery compared with 17% of public patients. For multiparas the rates were 8% and 3% respectively. Private patients were significantly more likely to have interventions before birth (epidural, induction or augmentation) but this alone did not account for the increased interventions at birth, particularly the high rates of instrumental births.
Conclusions: Public patients have a lower chance of an instrumental delivery. Women should have equal access to quality maternity services, but information on the outcomes associated with the various models of care may influence their choices.

---

© BMJ 2000
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Outcomes for births booked under an independent midwife and births in NHS maternity units: matched comparison study

Andrew Symon, Clare Winter, Melanie Inkster, and Peter T Donnan
BMJ 2009 338: b2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia

Isidor Papapetros and Allison Shorten
BMJ 2001 322: 430. [Extract] [Full Text]

Instrumental births are more common among women receiving private obstetric care
BMJ 2000 321: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Obstetric interventions among private and public patients

James F King
BMJ 2000 321: 125-126. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Symon, A., Winter, C., Inkster, M., Donnan, P. T (2009). Outcomes for births booked under an independent midwife and births in NHS maternity units: matched comparison study. BMJ 338: b2060-b2060 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Smith, R. (2006). Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity.. JRSM 99: 292-297 [Full text]  
• Caan, W., Messent, P., Leung, G. M, Lam, T.-H., Wong, I., Thach, T. Q (2002). Caesarean section rate in England and Wales. BMJ 324: 486-486 [Full text]  
• Potter, J. E, Berquo, E., Perpetuo, I. H O, Leal, O. F., Hopkins, K., Souza, M. R., Formiga, M. C. d. C. (2001). Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 323: 1155-1158 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Papapetros, I., Shorten, A. (2001). Obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia. BMJ 322: 430-430 [Full text]  
• King, J. F (2000). Obstetric interventions among private and public patients. BMJ 321: 125-126 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Private versus public health insurance for pregnancy: Women's choice?

Allison Shorten
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2000 [Full text]

Can we have more information , please?

Andrew Pesce
bmj.com, 23 Jul 2000 [Full text]

Scientific Truth or Politics?

Isidor J Papapetros
bmj.com, 23 Jul 2000 [Full text]

The relationship between epidural analgesia and instrumental delivery needs careful interpretation.

Nanda Gopal Mandal
bmj.com, 24 Jul 2000 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>