Skip to main content

Table 3 Probabilities of type of birth, complications and costs of hospitalization according to model of care

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quality improvement program to reduce caesarean sections in Brazilian private hospitals: a case study

Parameters

Standard of care model

(n = 154)

PPA model of care

(n = 84)

Effectiveness

  

 Proportion of caesareana

88.6

31.7

 Probability of no maternal or neonatal complication after a vaginal birth

0.846

0.825

 Probability of only maternal complication after a vaginal birth

0.077

0.070

 Probability of only neonatal complication after a vaginal birth

0.077

0,088

 Probability of both maternal and neonatal complication after a vaginal birth

0

0.018

 Probability of no maternal and neonatal complication after a CS

0.887

0.778

 Probability of only maternal complication after a CS

0.043

0.037

 Probability of only neonatal complication after a CS

0.064

0.185

 Probability of both maternal and neonatal complication after a CS

0.007

0

Costs (mean value)

  

 Vaginal birth with no maternal or neonatal complication

US$1,034.20

US$1,243.22

 Vaginal birth with only maternal complication

US$1,464.38

US$1,243,83

 Vaginal birth with only neonatal complication

US$3,737.12

US$7,131,00

 Vaginal birth with both maternal and neonatal complication

US$0.0

US$11,280.73

 Caesarean with no maternal or neonatal complication

US$918.78

US$1,263.27

 Caesarean with only maternal complication

US$2,108.95

US$1,874.69

 Caesarean with only neonatal complication

US$5,744.49

US$5.951,62

 Caesarean with both maternal or neonatal complication

US$5,068.28

US$0.0

Cost-effectiveness analysis

  

 Difference in probability of caesarean section

 

0.569

 Difference in total cost

 

US$704.10

  1. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) US$1,237.40/avoided cesarean section
  2. aWeighted proportion of cesarean section using the propensity score. The variables “age”, “years of study”, “initial preference for the type of childbirth” and “risk pregnancy” were used as explanatory variables for the logistic model of the propensity score and the type of model of care as the outcome variable