title: Cultural implications of differing rates of medically indicated and elective cesarean deliveries for foreign-born versus native-born taiwanese mothers.
abstract: The study aimed to assess the number of medically indicated and elective cesarean deliveries among foreign-born and native-born mothers in Taiwan. National Health Insurance (NHI) inpatient datasets in Taiwan between 2001 and 2003 showed 673,830 singleton deliveries, of which 66,687 were to foreign-born mothers and 607,143 were to Taiwan-born mothers. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of using inpatient services for medically indicated and elective cesarean delivery. During the study period, foreign-born mothers were significantly less likely to undergo medically indicated (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.79-0.85) and elective (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.53) cesarean delivery than Taiwan-born mothers after adjusting for clinical and nonclinical factors. Foreign-born mothers aged 18-50 years are less likely to undergo medically indicated and elective cesarean delivery under Taiwan's NHI coverage. As the birth rate for immigrant women increases, cross-cultural maternity care during pregnancy and childbirth for immigrant mothers needs to be addressed.
authors: Institute of Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
authors: Chun-Che
authors: CC
authors: Huang
authors: Chung-Yi
authors: CY
authors: Li
authors: Chiang-Hsing
authors: CH
authors: Yang
references: Birth. 2002 Mar;29(1):28-39
references: 11843787
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Apr 15;113(2):186-90
references: 15063958
references: J Health Econ. 1999 Aug;18(4):491-522
references: 10539619
references: N Engl J Med. 1984 Oct 4;311(14):887-92
references: 6472401
references: J Nurs Res. 2003 Sep;11(3):167-76
references: 14579194
references: Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(1):91-6
references: 12753818
references: Matern Child Health J. 2011 Feb;15(2):269-79
references: 20432059
references: BMC Public Health. 2010 Sep 10;10:548
references: 20831813
references: CMAJ. 2007 May 8;176(10):1439-40
references: 17485696
references: Am J Public Health. 2002 Sep;92(9):1514-7
references: 12197985
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;103(1):128-36
references: 14704256
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Jan;136(1):46-52
references: 17383794
references: Soc Sci Med. 2008 Jan;66(1):201-9
references: 17869398
references: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Oct;59(8):1613-27
references: 15279920
references: Matern Child Health J. 2005 Mar;9(1):11-20
references: 15880970
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;111(5):1077-82
references: 18448738
references: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Nov;17(9):1505-12
references: 18954239
references: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006 Aug;274(5):271-8
references: 16847635
references: Am J Public Health. 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt 1):1143-6
references: 7625515
references: Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):490-9
references: 20071021
references: Diabetes Care. 2004 Jul;27(7):1605-9
references: 15220235
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;53(10):1030-5
references: 11027936
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Jan;96(1):57-61
references: 17187798
references: CMAJ. 2006 Mar 14;174(6):787-91
references: 16534085