Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2615-5055
Original Article

Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery Risk by Physician Sex

Yuki Joyama
1   Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York
,
Misa Hayasaka
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Macon and Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Lindsay Robbins
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Macon and Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
George Saade
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Macon and Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Tetsuya Kawakita    *
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Macon and Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
Funding This study was supported by the Eastern Virginia Medical School (grant number: VHS 241231).
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to examine the association between physician sex, cesarean delivery, and neonatal complications.

Study Design

We analyzed the Consortium on Safe Labor database including 228,437 deliveries from 2002 to 2008. The study focused on singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentations, excluding cases with contraindications to vaginal delivery, elective cesarean deliveries, and nonobstetricians and gynecologists or maternal–fetal medicine physician management. The primary outcome of this study was cesarean delivery; secondary outcomes were cesarean delivery due to arrest of dilation or descent, cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings (NRFHT), cesarean delivery for other indications, and a composite of neonatal complications. To estimate average marginal effects (AMEs) in percentage points (pp) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of cesarean delivery between male and female physicians, we performed generalized estimating equations with Poisson distribution and exchange–correlation structure, adjusting for maternal, physician-level characteristics, and hospital-fixed effects.

Results

Of 108,004 individuals, 46,779 (43.3%) were attended by 183 female physicians, and 61,225 (56.7%) were attended by 250 male physicians. Female physicians were associated with a lower overall adjusted cesarean delivery proportion (11.93 vs. 13.47%; AME −1.54 pp [95% CI: −2.35, −0.73]), cesarean delivery for failure to progress (5.72 vs. 6.48%; AME −0.76 pp [95% CI: −1.24, −0.27]), and cesarean delivery for indications except for failure to progress or NRFHT (1.68 vs. 2.01%; AME −0.33 pp [95% CI: −0.56, −0.10]). There were no significant differences in cesarean outcomes for NRFHT or composite neonatal complications between male and female physicians.

Conclusion

Compared with male physicians, female physicians had a lower rate of cesarean delivery. Further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms and develop targeted interventions.

Key Points

  • Compared with male physicians, female physicians had a lower rate of cesarean delivery.

  • This reduction was particularly evident for cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress.

  • The reduction was not associated with an increased risk of neonatal complications.

Keywords

maternal–fetal medicine - multiparas - nulliparas - obstetrics and gynecology - surgeon sex

* Principle Investigator.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 07 April 2025

Accepted: 18 May 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 May 2025

Article published online:
03 June 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Janssen SM, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Physician's gender, communication style, patient preferences and patient satisfaction in gynecology and obstetrics: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 89 (02) 221-226
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA 2002; 288 (06) 756-764
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Surchat C, Carrard V, Gaume J, Berney A, Clair C. Impact of physician empathy on patient outcomes: a gender analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2022; 72 (715) e99-e107
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995; 152 (09) 1423-1433
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Gouni-Berthold I, Berthold HK. Role of physician gender in the quality of care of cardiometabolic diseases. Curr Pharm Des 2011; 17 (33) 3690-3698
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Yee LM, Grobman WA. Obstetrician cognitive and affective skills in a diverse academic population. BMC Med Educ 2016; 16: 138
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Berthold HK, Gouni-Berthold I, Bestehorn KP, Böhm M, Krone W. Physician gender is associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care. J Intern Med 2008; 264 (04) 340-350
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Dahrouge S, Seale E, Hogg W. et al. A comprehensive assessment of family physician gender and quality of care: a cross-sectional analysis in Ontario, Canada. Med Care 2016; 54 (03) 277-286
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Baumhäkel M, Müller U, Böhm M. Influence of gender of physicians and patients on guideline-recommended treatment of chronic heart failure in a cross-sectional study. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11 (03) 299-303
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nakayama A, Morita H, Fujiwara T, Komuro I. Effect of treatment by female cardiologists on short-term readmission rates of patients hospitalized with cardiovascular diseases. Circ J 2019; 83 (09) 1937-1943
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Henderson JT, Weisman CS. Physician gender effects on preventive screening and counseling: an analysis of male and female patients' health care experiences. Med Care 2001; 39 (12) 1281-1292
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Flocke SA, Gilchrist V. Physician and patient gender concordance and the delivery of comprehensive clinical preventive services. Med Care 2005; 43 (05) 486-492
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Wallis CJD, Jerath A, Aminoltejari K. et al. Surgeon sex and long-term postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing common surgeries. JAMA Surg 2023; 158 (11) 1185-1194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Greenwood BN, Carnahan S, Huang L. Patient-physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115 (34) 8569-8574
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wallis CJD, Jerath A, Ikesu R. et al. Association between patient-surgeon gender concordance and mortality after surgery in the United States: retrospective observational study. BMJ 2023; 383: e075484
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Plunkett BA, Kohli P, Milad MP. The importance of physician gender in the selection of an obstetrician or a gynecologist. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (05) 926-928
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Howell EA, Gardiner B, Concato J. Do women prefer female obstetricians?. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99 (06) 1031-1035
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Mavis B, Vasilenko P, Schnuth R, Marshall J, Jeffs MC. Female patients' preferences related to interpersonal communications, clinical competence, and gender when selecting a physician. Acad Med 2005; 80 (12) 1159-1165
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hoxha I, Sadiku F, Lama A. et al. Cesarean delivery and gender of delivering physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (06) 1170-1178
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Haberman S, Saraf S, Zhang J. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Nonclinical parameters affecting primary cesarean rates in the United States. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (03) 213-222
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Grantz K, Grewal U. Consortium on Safe Labor (Version 1) [dataset]. NICHD Data and Specimen Hub:10.57982/821t-ff93
    PubMed
  • 22 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Clark-Ganheart CA, Reddy UM, Kominiarek MA, Huang CC, Landy HJ, Grantz KL. Pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring by attempted mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (05) 987-993
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Diggle PJ, Heagerty PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. 2nd ed.. Oxford University Press; 2002
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Tolcher MC, Holbert MR, Weaver AL. et al. Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (05) 1059-1068
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Huang JC, Auguste TC, Bauer D, Overcash RT. Externally validated prediction model of vaginal delivery after preterm induction with unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (04) 716-724
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 de Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Bais JMJ, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (12) 2005-2007
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Lagrew Jr DC, Adashek JA. Lowering the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: comparison of individual physicians' rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178 (06) 1207-1214
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Williams R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J 2012; 12 (02) 308-331
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Panelli DM, Leonard SA, Joudi N. et al. Clinical and physician factors associated with failed operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141 (06) 1181-1189
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C. et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet 2018; 392 (10155): 1358-1368
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E. et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 9 (09) CD005528
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Nijagal MA, Kuppermann M, Nakagawa S, Cheng Y. Two practice models in one labor and delivery unit: association with cesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 491.e1-491.e8
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (05) 1511-1515
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar