Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 17 September 2012
- Published on: 17 September 2012
- Published on: 17 September 2012
- Published on: 17 September 2012Intervention rates should be interpreted in the context of perinatal morbidity, not just mortalityShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 17 September 2012Private Obstetrics - againShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 17 September 2012Conclusion on the impact of interventions is not supported by data in the paperShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.