Responses

PDF

Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Intervention rates should be interpreted in the context of perinatal morbidity, not just mortality

    Dahlen's study, "Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study" provides a useful window into contemporary midwifery and obstetric practice in Australia. It is unfortunate that the authors choose to discuss the rising rate of intervention in low-risk women in both private and public settings in the context of a static perinata...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Private Obstetrics - again

    This paper by Dahlen et al has reignited the public debate about obstetric intervention rates in Australia. Strangely - given the size of the dataset available to the authors - adverse perinatal outcomes were not examined in the study. However in the discussion the authors assert "these (higher) rates do not appear to be parallel to or be associated with a better infant outcome" and go on to cite a small single centre RC...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Conclusion on the impact of interventions is not supported by data in the paper

    Dahlen et al. claim:

    "The continual rise in obstetric intervention for low-risk women in Australia is concerning in terms of morbidity for women and cost to the public purse. The fact that these procedures which were initially life- saving are now so commonplace and do not appear to be associated with improved perinatal death rates demands close review."

    However, the authors never looked at the perinata...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.