MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362657534 · doi:10.7189/jogh.13.04029

Hospital variations in caesarean delivery rates: An analysis of national data in China, 2016-2020

2023· article· en· W4362657534 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shaohua Yin, Yubo Zhou, Pengbo Yuan, Yuan Wei, Lian Chen, Xiaoyue Guo, Hongtian Li, Jie Lu, Ge Lin, Huifeng Shi, Xiaoxia Wang, Luyao Li, Jie Qiao, Dunjin Chen, Jianmeng Liu, Yangyu Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking University Health Science CenterFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesPeking UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityYork University
KeywordsCaesarean deliveryChinaMedicineMEDLINEObstetricsCaesarean sectionPregnancyGeographyPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The impact of China's use of caesarean delivery on global public health has been a long-term concern. The number of private hospitals is increasing in China and likely driving up caesarean delivery rates, yet specifics remain unknown. We aimed to investigate variations in caesarean delivery rates across and within hospital types in China. Methods: We retrieved data on hospital characteristics and national hospital-level annually aggregated data on the number of deliveries and caesarean deliveries from 2016-2020, covering 7085 hospitals in 31 provinces of mainland China, from the National Clinical Improvement System. We categorized hospitals as public-non-referral (n = 4103), public-referral (n = 1805) and private (n = 1177). Among the private hospitals, 89.1% (n = 1049) were non-referral regarding obstetrical services for uncomplicated pregnancies. Results: Among 38 517 196 deliveries, 16 744 405 were caesarean, giving an overall rate of 43.5% with a minor range of 42.9%-43.9% over time. Median rates differed across hospital types, from 47.0% (interquartile range (IQR) = 39.8%-55.9%) in public-referral, 45.8% (36.2%-55.8%) in private, and 40.3% (30.6%-50.6%) in public-non-referral hospitals. The stratified analyses corroborated the results, except for the northeastern region, where the median rates did not differ across the public-non-referral (58.9%), public-referral (59.3%), and private (58.8%) hospitals, while all ranked higher than the other regions, regardless of hospital type and urbanization levels. The rates within hospital types differed as well, especially in the rural areas of the western region of China, where the difference of rates between the 5th and 95th percentiles was 55.6% (IQR = 4.9%-60.5%) in public-non-referral, 51.5% (IQR = 19.6%-71.1%) in public-referral, and 64.6% (IQR = 14.8%-79.4%) in private hospitals. Conclusions: Variation across hospital types in China was pronounced, with the highest rates either in public-referral or private hospitals, except in the northeastern region, where no variation was observed among the high rates of caesarean deliveries. Variation within each hospital type was pronounced, especially in rural areas of the western region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global HealthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207