↓ Skip to main content

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0859-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mira Johri, Edmond S. W. Ng, Clara Bermudez-Tamayo, Jeffrey S. Hoch, Thierry Ducruet, Nils Chaillet

Abstract

Widespread increases in caesarean section (CS) rates have sparked concerns about risks to mothers and infants and rising healthcare costs. A multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial in Quebec, Canada assessed whether an audit and feedback intervention targeting health professionals would reduce CS rates for pregnant women compared to usual care, and concluded that it reduced CS rates without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal health. The effect was statistically significant but clinically small. We assessed cost-effectiveness to inform scale-up decisions. A prospective economic evaluation was undertaken using individual patient data from the Quality of Care, Obstetrics Risk Management, and Mode of Delivery (QUARISMA) trial (April 2008 to October 2011). Analyses took a healthcare payer perspective. The time horizon captured hospital-based costs and clinical events for mothers and neonates from labour onset to 3 months postpartum. Resource use was identified and measured from patient charts and valued using standardized government sources. We estimated the changes in CS rates and costs for the intervention group (versus controls) between the baseline and post-intervention periods. We examined heterogeneity between clinical subgroups of high-risk versus low-risk pregnancies and estimated the joint uncertainty in cost-effectiveness over 20,000 trial simulations. We decomposed costs to identify drivers of change. The intervention group experienced per-patient reductions of 0.005 CS (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.015 to 0.004, P = 0.09) and $180 (95% CI: -$277 to - $83, P < 0.001). Women with low-risk pregnancies experienced statistically significant reductions in CS rates and costs; changes for the high-risk subgroup were not significant. The intervention was "dominant" (effective in reducing CS and less costly than usual care) in 86.08% of simulations. It reduced costs in 99.99% of simulations. Cost reductions were driven by lower rates of neonatal complications in the intervention group (-$190, 95% CI: -$255 to - $125, P < 0.001). Given 88,000 annual provincial births, a similar intervention could save $15.8 million (range: $7.3 to $24.4 million) in Quebec annually. From a healthcare payer perspective, a multifaceted intervention involving audits and feedback resulted in a small reduction in caesarean deliveries and important cost savings. Cost reductions are consistent with improved quality of care in intervention group hospitals. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95086407 . Registered on 23 October 2007.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 33 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#571,681
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#423
of 3,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,773
of 320,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 320,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.