Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis

Authors: Mira Johri, Edmond S. W. Ng, Clara Bermudez-Tamayo, Jeffrey S. Hoch, Thierry Ducruet, Nils Chaillet

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Widespread increases in caesarean section (CS) rates have sparked concerns about risks to mothers and infants and rising healthcare costs. A multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial in Quebec, Canada assessed whether an audit and feedback intervention targeting health professionals would reduce CS rates for pregnant women compared to usual care, and concluded that it reduced CS rates without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal health. The effect was statistically significant but clinically small. We assessed cost-effectiveness to inform scale-up decisions.

Methods

A prospective economic evaluation was undertaken using individual patient data from the Quality of Care, Obstetrics Risk Management, and Mode of Delivery (QUARISMA) trial (April 2008 to October 2011). Analyses took a healthcare payer perspective. The time horizon captured hospital-based costs and clinical events for mothers and neonates from labour onset to 3 months postpartum. Resource use was identified and measured from patient charts and valued using standardized government sources. We estimated the changes in CS rates and costs for the intervention group (versus controls) between the baseline and post-intervention periods. We examined heterogeneity between clinical subgroups of high-risk versus low-risk pregnancies and estimated the joint uncertainty in cost-effectiveness over 20,000 trial simulations. We decomposed costs to identify drivers of change.

Results

The intervention group experienced per-patient reductions of 0.005 CS (95% confidence interval (CI): −0.015 to 0.004, P = 0.09) and $180 (95% CI: −$277 to − $83, P < 0.001). Women with low-risk pregnancies experienced statistically significant reductions in CS rates and costs; changes for the high-risk subgroup were not significant. The intervention was “dominant” (effective in reducing CS and less costly than usual care) in 86.08% of simulations. It reduced costs in 99.99% of simulations. Cost reductions were driven by lower rates of neonatal complications in the intervention group (−$190, 95% CI: −$255 to − $125, P < 0.001). Given 88,000 annual provincial births, a similar intervention could save $15.8 million (range: $7.3 to $24.4 million) in Quebec annually.

Conclusions

From a healthcare payer perspective, a multifaceted intervention involving audits and feedback resulted in a small reduction in caesarean deliveries and important cost savings. Cost reductions are consistent with improved quality of care in intervention group hospitals.

Trial registration

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95086407. Registered on 23 October 2007
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):E0148343.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):E0148343.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Tuncalp O, Vogel JP, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Tuncalp O, Vogel JP, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gulmezoglu AM, WHO Working Group On Caesarean Section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2015;23(45):149–50. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gulmezoglu AM, WHO Working Group On Caesarean Section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2015;23(45):149–50.
4.
go back to reference Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Shah A, Campodonico L, Bataglia V, Faundes A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1819–29.CrossRefPubMed Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Shah A, Campodonico L, Bataglia V, Faundes A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1819–29.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen R. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;6:Cd005528. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen R. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;6:Cd005528.
6.
go back to reference Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, Pasquier JC, Audibert F, Monnier P, Abenhaim HA, Dube E, Dugas M, Burne R, et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(18):1710–21.CrossRefPubMed Chaillet N, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, Pasquier JC, Audibert F, Monnier P, Abenhaim HA, Dube E, Dugas M, Burne R, et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce cesarean delivery rates in Quebec. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(18):1710–21.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Statistics Canada. Life expectancy, at birth and at age 65, by sex, Canada, provinces and territories, annual (years) (CANSIM Table 102-0512). Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2012. Statistics Canada. Life expectancy, at birth and at age 65, by sex, Canada, provinces and territories, annual (years) (CANSIM Table 102-0512). Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2012.
8.
go back to reference Institut de la statistique du Québec. Profils economiques par pays et territoire, et tableaux comparatifs par indicateur, 2005–2014. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec; 2015. Institut de la statistique du Québec. Profils economiques par pays et territoire, et tableaux comparatifs par indicateur, 2005–2014. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec; 2015.
9.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2006. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2006.
10.
go back to reference Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161–72.CrossRefPubMed Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161–72.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Statistics Canada. Births, estimates, by province and territory. (CANSIM Table 051-0004). 2016. Ottawa. Statistics Canada. Births, estimates, by province and territory. (CANSIM Table 051-0004). 2016. Ottawa.
12.
go back to reference Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Patient cost estimator methodology notes and glossary. Ottawa: CIHI; 2015. p. 9. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Patient cost estimator methodology notes and glossary. Ottawa: CIHI; 2015. p. 9.
13.
go back to reference Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). National Physician Database 2011–2012 Data Release. Ottawa: CIHI; 2013. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). National Physician Database 2011–2012 Data Release. Ottawa: CIHI; 2013.
15.
go back to reference Khandker SR, Koolwal GB, Hussain AS. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2010. Khandker SR, Koolwal GB, Hussain AS. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2010.
16.
go back to reference Dumont A, Fournier P, Abrahamowicz M, Traore M, Haddad S, Fraser WD, for the QUARITE research group. Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9887):146–57. Dumont A, Fournier P, Abrahamowicz M, Traore M, Haddad S, Fraser WD, for the QUARITE research group. Quality of care, risk management, and technology in obstetrics to reduce hospital-based maternal mortality in Senegal and Mali (QUARITE): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9887):146–57.
17.
go back to reference Gomes M, Ng ES, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG. Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):350–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gomes M, Ng ES, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG. Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):350–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Ng ES-W, Diaz-Ordaz K, Grieve R, Nixon RM, Thompson SG, Carpenter JR. Multilevel models for cost-effectiveness analyses that use cluster randomised trial data: an approach to model choice. Stat Methods in Med Res. 2013. doi:10.1177/0962280213511719. Ng ES-W, Diaz-Ordaz K, Grieve R, Nixon RM, Thompson SG, Carpenter JR. Multilevel models for cost-effectiveness analyses that use cluster randomised trial data: an approach to model choice. Stat Methods in Med Res. 2013. doi:10.​1177/​0962280213511719​.
19.
go back to reference Rasbash J, Charlton C, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B. MLwiN Version 2.1. In: Centre for Multilevel Modelling. Bristol: University of Bristol; 2009. Rasbash J, Charlton C, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B. MLwiN Version 2.1. In: Centre for Multilevel Modelling. Bristol: University of Bristol; 2009.
20.
go back to reference Leckie G, Charlton C. runmlwin: a program to run the MLwiN multilevel modeling software from within Stata. J Stat Software. 2013;52(11):40. Leckie G, Charlton C. runmlwin: a program to run the MLwiN multilevel modeling software from within Stata. J Stat Software. 2013;52(11):40.
21.
go back to reference O'Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):455–68. O'Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):455–68.
22.
go back to reference Browne WJ. MCMC estimation in MLwiN, V2.26. Bristol: Centre For Multilevel Modelling. Bristol: University Of Bristol; 2012. Browne WJ. MCMC estimation in MLwiN, V2.26. Bristol: Centre For Multilevel Modelling. Bristol: University Of Bristol; 2012.
23.
go back to reference Régie de L’assurance maladie du Québec. Manuel de Facturation: Rémunération a L’acte (Médecins Spécialistes), Maj 85 Edn; 2013 Régie de L’assurance maladie du Québec. Manuel de Facturation: Rémunération a L’acte (Médecins Spécialistes), Maj 85 Edn; 2013
24.
go back to reference Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:Cd000259. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:Cd000259.
25.
go back to reference Fretheim A, Aaserud M, Oxman AD. Rational Prescribing in Primary Care (RaPP): economic evaluation of an intervention to improve professional practice. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):E216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fretheim A, Aaserud M, Oxman AD. Rational Prescribing in Primary Care (RaPP): economic evaluation of an intervention to improve professional practice. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):E216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, Di ASG. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334(7607):1305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, Di ASG. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334(7607):1305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Hollinghurst S, Emmett C, Peters TJ, Watson H, Fahey T, Murphy DJ, Montgomery A. Economic evaluation of the DIAMOND randomized trial: cost and outcomes of 2 decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous cesarean section. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):453–63.CrossRefPubMed Hollinghurst S, Emmett C, Peters TJ, Watson H, Fahey T, Murphy DJ, Montgomery A. Economic evaluation of the DIAMOND randomized trial: cost and outcomes of 2 decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous cesarean section. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):453–63.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Briggs A, Nixon R, Dixon S, Thompson S. Parametric modelling of cost data: some simulation evidence. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):421–8.CrossRefPubMed Briggs A, Nixon R, Dixon S, Thompson S. Parametric modelling of cost data: some simulation evidence. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):421–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD. Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ. 2010;19(3):316–33.CrossRefPubMed Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD. Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ. 2010;19(3):316–33.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis
Authors
Mira Johri
Edmond S. W. Ng
Clara Bermudez-Tamayo
Jeffrey S. Hoch
Thierry Ducruet
Nils Chaillet
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0859-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medicine 1/2017 Go to the issue