原发性剖宫产的种族、民族和适应症:国家出生中心登记中的关联。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1111/birt.12791
Laura Manns-James PhD, CNM, WHNP-BC, Shaughanassee Vines DNP, CNE, CNM, FACNM, Jill Alliman DNP, CNM, Lauren Hoehn-Velasco PhD, Susan Stapleton DNP, CNM, Jennifer Wright MA, Diana Jolles PhD, CNM
{"title":"原发性剖宫产的种族、民族和适应症:国家出生中心登记中的关联。","authors":"Laura Manns-James PhD, CNM, WHNP-BC,&nbsp;Shaughanassee Vines DNP, CNE, CNM, FACNM,&nbsp;Jill Alliman DNP, CNM,&nbsp;Lauren Hoehn-Velasco PhD,&nbsp;Susan Stapleton DNP, CNM,&nbsp;Jennifer Wright MA,&nbsp;Diana Jolles PhD, CNM","doi":"10.1111/birt.12791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Racial and ethnic disparities in cesarean rates in the United States are well documented. This study investigated whether cesarean inequities persist in midwife-led birth center care, including for individuals with the lowest medical risk.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>National registry records of 174,230 childbearing people enrolled in care in 115 midwifery-led birth center practices between 2007 and 2022 were analyzed for primary cesarean rates and indications by race and ethnicity. The lowest medical risk subsample (<i>n</i> = 70,521) was analyzed for independent drivers of cesarean birth.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Primary cesarean rates among nulliparas (15.5%) and multiparas (5.7%) were low for all enrollees. Among nulliparas in the lowest-risk subsample, non-Latinx Black (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15–1.63), Latinx (aOR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32–1.73), and Asian participants (aOR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19–1.85) remained at higher risk for primary cesarean than White participants. Among multiparas, only Black participants experienced a higher primary cesarean risk (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02–2.18). Intrapartum transfers from birth centers were equivalent or lower for Black (14.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.345) and Latinx (12.7%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) enrollees. Black participants experienced a higher proportion of primary cesareans attributed to non-reassuring fetal status, regardless of risk factors. Place of admission was a stronger predictor of primary cesarean than race or ethnicity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Place of first admission in labor was the strongest predictor of cesarean. Racism as a chronic stressor and a determinant of clinical decision-making reduces choice in birth settings and may increase cesarean rates. Research on components of birth settings that drive inequitable outcomes is warranted.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55350,"journal":{"name":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","volume":"51 2","pages":"353-362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/birt.12791","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Race, ethnicity, and indications for primary cesarean birth: Associations within a national birth center registry\",\"authors\":\"Laura Manns-James PhD, CNM, WHNP-BC,&nbsp;Shaughanassee Vines DNP, CNE, CNM, FACNM,&nbsp;Jill Alliman DNP, CNM,&nbsp;Lauren Hoehn-Velasco PhD,&nbsp;Susan Stapleton DNP, CNM,&nbsp;Jennifer Wright MA,&nbsp;Diana Jolles PhD, CNM\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/birt.12791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Racial and ethnic disparities in cesarean rates in the United States are well documented. This study investigated whether cesarean inequities persist in midwife-led birth center care, including for individuals with the lowest medical risk.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>National registry records of 174,230 childbearing people enrolled in care in 115 midwifery-led birth center practices between 2007 and 2022 were analyzed for primary cesarean rates and indications by race and ethnicity. The lowest medical risk subsample (<i>n</i> = 70,521) was analyzed for independent drivers of cesarean birth.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Primary cesarean rates among nulliparas (15.5%) and multiparas (5.7%) were low for all enrollees. Among nulliparas in the lowest-risk subsample, non-Latinx Black (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15–1.63), Latinx (aOR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32–1.73), and Asian participants (aOR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19–1.85) remained at higher risk for primary cesarean than White participants. Among multiparas, only Black participants experienced a higher primary cesarean risk (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02–2.18). Intrapartum transfers from birth centers were equivalent or lower for Black (14.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.345) and Latinx (12.7%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) enrollees. Black participants experienced a higher proportion of primary cesareans attributed to non-reassuring fetal status, regardless of risk factors. Place of admission was a stronger predictor of primary cesarean than race or ethnicity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Place of first admission in labor was the strongest predictor of cesarean. Racism as a chronic stressor and a determinant of clinical decision-making reduces choice in birth settings and may increase cesarean rates. Research on components of birth settings that drive inequitable outcomes is warranted.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"353-362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/birt.12791\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/birt.12791\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/birt.12791","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国剖宫产率的种族和族裔差异有充分的记录。这项研究调查了助产士主导的分娩中心护理中是否存在剖宫产不公平现象,包括医疗风险最低的个人。方法:分析2007年至2022年间,在115家助产中心接受护理的174230名育龄妇女的国家登记记录,按种族和民族分析原发性剖宫产率和适应症。最低医疗风险子样本(n = 70521)对剖宫产的独立驱动因素进行分析。结果:在所有入选者中,未产妇(15.5%)和经产妇(5.7%)的原发性剖宫产率均较低。在风险最低的子样本中,非拉丁裔黑人(aOR = 1.37;95%置信区间,1.15-1.63),拉丁裔(aOR = 1.51;95%CI,1.32-1.73),以及亚洲参与者(aOR = 1.48;95%可信区间1.19-1.85)仍然比白人参与者有更高的原发性剖宫产风险。在经产妇中,只有黑人参与者经历了更高的原发性剖宫产风险(aOR = 1.49;95%可信区间,1.02-2.18)。黑人从分娩中心进行的分娩转移相当或更低(14.0%,p = 0.345)和拉丁裔(12.7%,p 结论:分娩时第一次入院的地点是剖宫产的最强预测因素。种族主义作为一种慢性压力源和临床决策的决定因素,减少了分娩环境中的选择,并可能增加剖宫产率。有必要对导致不公平结果的出生环境组成部分进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Race, ethnicity, and indications for primary cesarean birth: Associations within a national birth center registry

Background

Racial and ethnic disparities in cesarean rates in the United States are well documented. This study investigated whether cesarean inequities persist in midwife-led birth center care, including for individuals with the lowest medical risk.

Methods

National registry records of 174,230 childbearing people enrolled in care in 115 midwifery-led birth center practices between 2007 and 2022 were analyzed for primary cesarean rates and indications by race and ethnicity. The lowest medical risk subsample (n = 70,521) was analyzed for independent drivers of cesarean birth.

Results

Primary cesarean rates among nulliparas (15.5%) and multiparas (5.7%) were low for all enrollees. Among nulliparas in the lowest-risk subsample, non-Latinx Black (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15–1.63), Latinx (aOR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32–1.73), and Asian participants (aOR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19–1.85) remained at higher risk for primary cesarean than White participants. Among multiparas, only Black participants experienced a higher primary cesarean risk (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02–2.18). Intrapartum transfers from birth centers were equivalent or lower for Black (14.0%, p = 0.345) and Latinx (12.7%, p < 0.001) enrollees. Black participants experienced a higher proportion of primary cesareans attributed to non-reassuring fetal status, regardless of risk factors. Place of admission was a stronger predictor of primary cesarean than race or ethnicity.

Conclusions

Place of first admission in labor was the strongest predictor of cesarean. Racism as a chronic stressor and a determinant of clinical decision-making reduces choice in birth settings and may increase cesarean rates. Research on components of birth settings that drive inequitable outcomes is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care is a multidisciplinary, refereed journal devoted to issues and practices in the care of childbearing women, infants, and families. It is written by and for professionals in maternal and neonatal health, nurses, midwives, physicians, public health workers, doulas, social scientists, childbirth educators, lactation counselors, epidemiologists, and other health caregivers and policymakers in perinatal care.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A History of Cesarean Birth as a Risk Factor for Postpartum Hemorrhage Even After Successful Planned Vaginal Birth. Pregnant Women's Care Needs During Early Labor-A Scoping Review. Sociodemographic and Health-Related Risk Factors Associated With Planned and Emergency Cesarean Births in Mexico. Validating the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework Index: A Global Tool for Quality-of-Care Evaluations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1