Dc. Green et al., ARE WE UNDERESTIMATING RATES OF VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER PREVIOUS CESAREANBIRTH - THE VALIDITY OF DELIVERY METHODS FROM BIRTH CERTIFICATES, American journal of epidemiology, 147(6), 1998, pp. 581-586
Previous studies of birth certificates have not fully evaluated how ac
curately they identify delivery methods that have a historical compone
nt, such as repeat cesarean and vaginal birth after previous cesarean
(VBAC). The authors used linked Georgia birth certificates for first a
nd second deliveries to examine the accuracy of four reported delivery
methods in the second pregnancy: vaginal (without previous cesarean),
VBAC, primary cesarean, and repeat cesarean, as well as an indicator
of a previous cesarean. From the immediate birth certificates, the del
ivery method for each of the two births was classified as vaginal (V)
or cesarean section (CS), which produced possible sequences of V-V, CS
-V, V-CS, and CS-CS. The delivery method for the second births to 106,
049 women from 1989 through 1992 was reviewed, taking into account the
historical information from the linked certificates regarding the fir
st births. Only 42.0% of women with a CS-V sequence were correctly des
ignated on the second birth certificate as a VBAC; 79.3% of women with
a V-CS sequence were correctly designated as primary cesarean. From 1
980 through 1988, birth certificates contained a check box indicating
a previous cesarean (but no VBAC box). During this period, only 75.5%
of 25,491 women with a previous cesarean were so designated on the bir
th certificate. These findings suggest that cross-sectional vital reco
rds data substantially underestimate VBAC and primary cesarean rates.