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, 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","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> < 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, 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\",\"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> < 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}
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.
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.