Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Digest

Likelihood That Cesarean May Have Been Unneeded Differs by Women's Race

Authors

D. Hollander

Eleven percent of primary and 65% of repeat cesarean deliveries performed in the United States in 2001 may not have been clinically necessary, according to an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative database.1 White women were significantly less likely than blacks to have a primary cesarean that was potentially unnecessary, but the reverse was true for repeat procedures. The likelihood that a cesarean delivery may have been unnecessary also varied by a number of other maternal characteristics, as well as by some hospital characteristics; for a number of factors, associations with primary procedures were in the opposite direction of those for repeat cesareans.

The analysis was based on information from the 2001 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database, which contains records of stays in more than 1,000 hospitals in 33 states. All women who had a singleton live birth were included in the calculations. Those who delivered by cesarean were classified according to whether this was their first such delivery or a repeat procedure; if a woman's discharge record did not document any of 24 standard indications for cesarean, the procedure was categorized as potentially unnecessary. Notably, to ensure that their findings were as comparable as possible to those of earlier work, the analysts did not consider previous surgical delivery an indication for cesarean.

Nationwide, the analysts estimate, 540,174 primary and 371,863 repeat cesareans were performed in 2001. Of these, 11% and 65%, respectively, were potentially unnecessary. The descriptive data suggest some degree of variation in these rates by maternal and hospital characteristics. For example, the proportion of primary cesareans that may not have been necessary was as high as 14% among black women and 16% among Medicare recipients; it was as low as 9% among women living in the West. By contrast, black women and Medicare recipients had below-average rates of potentially unnecessary repeat cesareans (62% and 59%, respectively), and the rate reached 70% in rural hospitals and in government-owned facilities. The analysts used multiple logistic regression to explore the characteristics associated with potentially unnecessary cesareans.

In the multivariate analysis, white women, Hispanic women and women of other or unknown ethnicities were significantly less likely than blacks to have a primary cesarean that was potentially unnecessary (odds ratios, 0.7-0.8). Women aged 35 and older had an elevated likelihood of this outcome, as did women who were admitted to the hospital on a weekend (1.1 for each). The odds that a primary cesarean may have been unnecessary were higher among Medicare recipients than among women with private insurance (1.4), and higher among Southerners than among women from the West (1.2).

With repeat cesareans, however, the odds that a procedure was potentially unnecessary were elevated among white women (odds ratio, 1.1), and were reduced among women aged 35 or older (0.8) and those whose hospitalization began on a weekend (0.7). In addition, repeat cesareans performed in rural hospitals were more likely than those done in urban, teaching hospitals to be potentially unnecessary (1.3). Findings at a marginal level of statistical significance suggest a reduced likelihood that procedures performed for women receiving Medicare and those done in private hospitals may not have been necessary, and an increased likelihood for those performed in urban, nonteaching hospitals.

In commenting on the findings, the analysts emphasize that they cannot draw "definitive conclusions about whether the potentially unnecessary cesareans were clinically unnecessary." Nor can they identify the factorsâ€"including physicians' preferences, women's preferences and clinical concernsâ€"underlying the racial and other differences observed in the likelihood of potentially unnecessary cesareans. Nevertheless, they conclude that "a large number of cesareans are not supported by documentation of recognized clinical indicators," and that eliminating such procedures would reduce the costs of delivery and the risk of adverse maternal outcomes.

D. Hollander

REFERENCE

1. Kabir AA et al., Racial differences in cesareans: an analysis of U.S. 2001 national inpatient sample data, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2005, 105(4):710-718.

Volume 37, Issue 3
September 2005
|
Page 158

First published online: August 31, 2005

Share

Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.