Responses

Download PDFPDF

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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.