Powered by ProofFactor - Social Proof Notifications

caesarian section

Jul 6, 2017 | 0 comments

Jul 6, 2017 | Essays | 0 comments

Rate this post

Critical Analysis of a Quantitative Study-caesarian section

Introduction

The study was conducted to explore the factors and circumstances that explain the linkage between the insurance cover of the private health and the caesarian section of high rates in Chile. The study applied both qualitative and quantitative analysis in the research design. In the qualitative analysis, the study analyzed the interviews with pregnant women and obstetricians. Similarly, on the quantitative analysis, the study analyzed the data from the postnatal on the women who in the previous 24 to 72 hours had given birth.

 Protection of participants

The study tools applied in the study included face to face interview survey and audiotaped interviews with the participants. Furthermore, medical records were reviewed to obtain data on the care management and experiences of women in labor care. To protect the participants and to be ethical, the researcher obtained approval from the Chile health ministry before conducting the study. Furthermore, agreement to be involved in the study was gotten from the director of every study site

Data collection methods

The methods of data collection included face to face interview survey and audiotaped interviews with the participants. The study also applied the maximum variation opportunistic sampling approach to the obstetricians to make sure an extensive range of demographic attitudes, work contexts, experiences, and characteristics to the caesarian section. A similar method was applied to postnatal women to ensure a wide range of parity, age, and socio-economic status. This was believed to eliminated biases and ethical since the information was confidential

Problem statement

Why private health insurance is linked to the caesarian section’s high rate

Data analysis and data management of the quantitative study

The quantitative part of the study was done on 540 postnatal women whom the article will analyze. The semi-structured questionnaire about the expectations of the women and their experiences during the childbirth was administered 24 to 72 hours after the delivery by the researcher.

The results indicated that the views of the women on private women care with their private obstetricians chose a doctor through a relative or a friend recommendation (64% of the participants surveyed from the private clinic, and 80% from the university and public hospitals) (Murray, 2000). Among the women surveyed, the data also indicated that a higher percentage of women preferred private clinic than the university or public hospital because they believed the clinical care and personal care was better and also because it was the condition of the health insurance.

On the other hand, the postnatal women were also interviewed on the preference of delivery method.  When asked during the survey whether they had wanted a caesarian section at any point in their pregnancy, about 6% to 32% of the postnatal women receiving private care from their obstetricians reported that they had. Moreover, the resulted from the private clinic where about 70% of the surveyed women had undergone a caesarian section before, only 18% showed that they had wanted a caesarian section (Murray, 2000).

Discussion/interpretation of findings and suggestions offered

In a critical analysis of the study results, it is clear that the healthcare financing policies in Chile have influenced maternity care management and the outcomes in many unforeseen ways. To begin, in Chile, the private health insurance cover normally requires the maternity care primary provider to be an obstetrician, and the women having private obstetricians indicated higher rates of caesarian section compared to those of the public and university hospitals. This according to Murray (2000) cannot be explained as a reflection of the choice of a patient in the private sector. Murray (2000) asserted that the choice of the patient is always a complex issue, but there exist few grounds for the patients’ choice being the sole explanation of the high caesarian sections in the private sector in Chile.

The question being raised from the quantitative findings is whether the high rates of caesarian section in the private sector is simply a reflection of the consensus in the establishment of the obstetric in Chile, that this is the belief in Chile that because of advances in fetal wellbeing monitoring, the caesarian section should the optimal delivery method for most women. However, Murray (2000) contrasts that school of thought with statistics from one of the most exclusive hospitals in Santiago, Clínica Las Condes. From 1991, the hospital has reported a continuous steady decline in the caesarian section rates.

To discourage caesarian section high rates, the insurance schemes in Chile for the five years before the study had not paid more the obstetricians for performing caesarian sections in comparison to the vaginal deliveries. In the private sector also, the care package is standard irrespective of the delivery type. However, the caesarian section is opted for because it provides maximum efficiency in time use and to offer private care to other patients. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the study indicated that insurance covers of private health required that the primary provider of maternity care to be an obstetrician. However, in the postnatal survey, the women with private obstetricians showed high rates of caesarian section consistently compared to those cared for by the doctors on duty or midwives in university or public hospitals. Patients often incur extra costs from after the surgery and therefore hospitals benefit. Obstetricians also do private work to increase their income since the health insurance demands that their clients to have an obstetrician 

References

Murray, S. F. (January 01, 2000). The relation between private health insurance and high rates of cesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 321, 7275, 1501-5. 

 

 
Don`t copy text!