↓ Skip to main content

An Overview of the Health Economic Implications of Elective Caesarean Section

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
An Overview of the Health Economic Implications of Elective Caesarean Section
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40258-013-0063-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stavros Petrou, Kamran Khan

Abstract

The caesarean section rate has continued to increase in most industrialised countries, which raises a number of economic concerns. This review provides an overview of the health economic implications of elective caesarean section. It provides a succinct summary of the health consequences associated with elective caesarean section for both the infant and the mother over the perinatal period and beyond. It highlights factors that complicate our understanding of the health consequences of elective caesarean section, including inconsistencies in definitions and coding of the procedure, failure to adopt an intention-to-treat principle when drawing comparisons, and the widespread reliance on observational data. The paper then summarises the economic costs associated with elective caesarean section. Evidence is presented to suggest that planned caesarean section may be less costly than planned vaginal birth in some clinical contexts, for example where the singleton fetus lies in a breech position at term. In contrast, elective caesarean section (or caesarean section as a whole) appears to be more costly than vaginal delivery (either spontaneous or instrumented) in low-risk or unselected populations. The paper proceeds with an overview of economic evaluations associated with elective caesarean section. All are currently based on decision-analytic models. Evidence is presented to suggest that planned trial of labour (attempted vaginal birth) following a previous caesarean section appears to be a more cost-effective option than elective caesarean section, although its cost effectiveness is dependent upon the probability of successful vaginal delivery. There is conflicting evidence on the cost effectiveness of maternal request caesareans when compared with trial of labour. The paucity of evidence on the value pregnant women, clinicians and other groups in society place on the option of elective caesarean section is highlighted. Techniques that might be used to elicit preferences for elective caesarean section and its attributes are outlined. The review concludes with directions for future research in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 96 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 22 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,764,029
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#507
of 771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,715
of 211,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.