IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1997873344-351_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenblatt, R.A.
  • Dobie, S.A.
  • Hart, L.G.
  • Schneeweiss, R.
  • Gould, D.
  • Raine, T.R.
  • Benedetti, T.J.
  • Pirani, M.J.
  • Perrin, E.B.

Abstract

Objectives. This study examined differences among obstetricians, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives in the patterns of obstetric care provided to low-risk patients. Methods. For a random sample of Washington State obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and certified nurse- midwives, records of a random sample of their low-risk patients beginning care between September 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989, were abstracted. Results. Certified nurse-midwives were less likely to use continuous electronic fetal monitoring and had lower rates of labor induction or augmentation than physicians. Certified nurse-midwives also were less likely than physicians to use epidural anesthesia. The cesarean section rate for patients of certified nurse-midwives was 8.8% vs 13.6% for obstetricians and 15.1% for family physicians. Certified nurse-midwives used 12.2% fewer resources. There was little difference between the practice patterns of obstetricians and family physicians. Conclusions. The low-risk patients of certified nurse-midwives in Washington State received fewer obstetrical interventions than similar patients cared for by obstetrician-gynecologists or family physicians. These differences are associated with lower cesarean section rates and less resource use.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenblatt, R.A. & Dobie, S.A. & Hart, L.G. & Schneeweiss, R. & Gould, D. & Raine, T.R. & Benedetti, T.J. & Pirani, M.J. & Perrin, E.B., 1997. "Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(3), pages 344-351.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:3:344-351_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Markowitz, Sara & Adams, E. Kathleen & Lewitt, Mary Jane & Dunlop, Anne L., 2017. "Competitive effects of scope of practice restrictions: Public health or public harm?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 201-218.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:3:344-351_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.