Complete Health Indicator Report of Cesarean Deliveries among Low Risk Women
Definition
The low-risk cesarean delivery rate is the percentage of cesarean deliveries among '''n'''ulliparous (first birth), '''t'''erm (37 completed weeks or more, based on the obstetric estimate), '''s'''ingleton (one fetus), '''v'''ertex (head first) births, sometimes referred to as NTSV births.Numerator
Number of cesarean deliveries among nulliparous, full-term, singleton, vertex presentation (NTSV) birthsDenominator
Total number of nulliparous, full-term, singleton, vertex presentation (NTSV) birthsWhy Is This Important?
Compared to vaginal deliveries, cesareans carry an increased risk of infection, blood clots, longer recovery, and difficulty with future pregnancies.Healthy People Objective: Reduce cesarean births among low-risk (full-term, singleton, vertex presentation) women: Women with no prior births
U.S. Target: 24.7 percentState Target: 27.9 percent
Other Objectives
'''Healthy NJ 2020 Objective MCH-14''': Reduce cesarean births among low-risk (nulliparous, full-term, singleton, vertex presentation) women to 27.9% among the total population, 27.0% among Whites, 29.3% among Blacks, 27.6% among Hispanics, and 30.2% among Asians.How Are We Doing?
The cesarean delivery rate among low risk (NTSV) births declined in 2010 for the first time since the mid-1990s and in 2020 stood at 26.2%. The rate is higher among Asian (30.2%) and Black (29.9%) mothers than among Hispanic (25.8%) and White (24.4%) mothers. The Healthy New Jersey 2020 target for all low-risk mothers and for Whites, Hispanics, and Asians were achieved. If the current trend continues, the target for Blacks will also be achieved within a year or two.How Do We Compare With the U.S.?
The low-risk cesarean rate in New Jersey began to rise in 1995, two years ahead of the US rate, and rose more quickly than the national rate. Both rates peaked in 2009. 2020 was the first year in which New Jersey's rate was not statistically significantly higher than the US rate.What Is Being Done?
In 2017, a team composed of DOH staff and external partners collaborated to develop a plan to reduce low risk c-sections in New Jersey hospitals. In 2018, DOH awarded [https://nj.gov/health/news/2018/approved/20180711a.shtml $4.7 million] to eight agencies to improve health outcomes among infants and mothers in New Jersey, including implementation of a doula pilot program to reduce the likelihood of certain birth and delivery/labor outcomes such as cesarean births. In 2021, the state [https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210202b.shtml Medicaid program began covering doula care], while also no longer paying for non-medical early elective deliveries. The same year, the [https://nurturenj.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20210120-Nurture-NJ-Strategic-Plan.pdf Nurture NJ Strategic Plan] recommended that all NJ birthing hospitals meet or attain NTSV cesarean birth rates lower than the national target by instituting new, comprehensive informed consent processes for all maternity patients so that patients understand the short- and long-term risks of c-sections and the benefits of spontaneous labor for both parents and newborns. The Plan also recommended more aggressive action by state government agencies to ensure improvement, including limitations on participation in provider networks for hospitals who do not meet targets.[https://nurturenj.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20210120-Nurture-NJ-Strategic-Plan.pdf#page=61 ^1^]Available Services
See Programs and Resources on [https://nj.gov/governor/admin/fl/nurturenj.shtml]Related Indicators
Related Health Care System Factors Indicators:
Data Tables
Low-Risk Cesarean Deliveries by Year, New Jersey and the United States, 1990-2020 (HNJ2020)
| US/NJ | Year | Percentage of Low-Risk Births | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Numer- ator | Denom- inator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 62 | ||||||
| US | 1990 | 21.6% | ||||
| US | 1991 | 21.4% | ||||
| US | 1992 | 21.0% | ||||
| US | 1993 | 20.2% | ||||
| US | 1994 | 19.1% | ||||
| US | 1995 | 18.8% | ||||
| US | 1996 | 18.5% | ||||
| US | 1997 | 18.4% | ||||
| US | 1998 | 18.7% | ||||
| US | 1999 | 19.5% | ||||
| US | 2000 | 20.3% | ||||
| US | 2001 | 21.6% | ||||
| US | 2002 | 23.1% | ||||
| US | 2003 | 24.3% | ||||
| US | 2004 | 25.7% | ||||
| US | 2005 | 26.6% | ||||
| US | 2006 | 27.1% | ||||
| US | 2007 | 27.5% | ||||
| US | 2008 | 27.8% | ||||
| US | 2009 | 28.1% | ||||
| US | 2010 | 27.5% | ||||
| US | 2011 | 27.2% | ||||
| US | 2012 | 27.2% | ||||
| US | 2013 | 26.8% | ||||
| US | 2014 | 26.0% | ||||
| US | 2015 | 25.8% | ||||
| US | 2016 | 25.7% | ||||
| US | 2017 | 26.0% | ||||
| US | 2018 | 25.9% | ||||
| US | 2019 | 25.6% | ||||
| US | 2020 | 25.9% | ||||
| NJ | 1990 | 23.5% | 23.0% | 23.9% | 8,882 | 37,865 |
| NJ | 1991 | 22.6% | 22.1% | 23.0% | 8,763 | 38,847 |
| NJ | 1992 | 22.4% | 22.0% | 22.8% | 8,536 | 38,166 |
| NJ | 1993 | 23.1% | 22.7% | 23.5% | 8,864 | 38,397 |
| NJ | 1994 | 22.0% | 21.6% | 22.4% | 8,482 | 38,517 |
| NJ | 1995 | 20.9% | 20.5% | 21.4% | 7,842 | 37,465 |
| NJ | 1996 | 21.4% | 21.0% | 21.8% | 8,103 | 37,834 |
| NJ | 1997 | 22.6% | 22.2% | 23.0% | 8,443 | 37,394 |
| NJ | 1998 | 23.2% | 22.8% | 23.6% | 8,652 | 37,321 |
| NJ | 1999 | 23.6% | 23.2% | 24.0% | 8,662 | 36,688 |
| NJ | 2000 | 25.1% | 24.6% | 25.5% | 9,559 | 38,124 |
| NJ | 2001 | 25.7% | 25.3% | 26.2% | 9,735 | 37,866 |
| NJ | 2002 | 27.9% | 27.4% | 28.3% | 10,433 | 37,453 |
| NJ | 2003 | 30.3% | 29.8% | 30.8% | 11,653 | 38,468 |
| NJ | 2004 | 32.3% | 31.8% | 32.8% | 12,160 | 37,677 |
| NJ | 2005 | 33.9% | 33.4% | 34.4% | 12,513 | 36,919 |
| NJ | 2006 | 34.6% | 34.1% | 35.1% | 12,889 | 37,258 |
| NJ | 2007 | 35.4% | 34.9% | 35.9% | 13,415 | 37,903 |
| NJ | 2008 | 35.3% | 34.8% | 35.8% | 13,136 | 37,180 |
| NJ | 2009 | 36.3% | 35.8% | 36.8% | 13,144 | 36,163 |
| NJ | 2010 | 34.9% | 34.4% | 35.4% | 12,277 | 35,129 |
| NJ | 2011 | 34.9% | 34.4% | 35.4% | 12,072 | 34,586 |
| NJ | 2012 | 35.1% | 34.6% | 35.6% | 11,917 | 33,967 |
| NJ | 2013 | 33.5% | 33.0% | 34.0% | 11,069 | 33,066 |
| NJ | 2014 | 32.4% | 31.9% | 32.9% | 10,648 | 32,879 |
| NJ | 2015 | 31.0% | 30.5% | 31.5% | 10,180 | 32,828 |
| NJ | 2016 | 30.4% | 30.0% | 30.9% | 10,525 | 34,581 |
| NJ | 2017 | 29.7% | 29.2% | 30.2% | 10,210 | 34,399 |
| NJ | 2018 | 28.0% | 27.6% | 28.5% | 9,590 | 34,191 |
| NJ | 2019 | 27.0% | 26.5% | 27.5% | 9,107 | 33,747 |
| NJ | 2020 | 26.2% | 25.8% | 26.7% | 8,754 | 33,356 |
Data Notes
This is Healthy New Jersey 2020 (HNJ2020) Objective MCH-14. Confidence intervals are not available for U.S. data.Data Sources
- Birth Certificate Database, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of Health
- National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/index.htm]
Low-Risk Cesarean Deliveries by Year and Mother's Race/Ethnicity, New Jersey, 1990-2020 (HNJ2020)
| Race/Ethnicity | Year | Percentage of Low-Risk Births | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Numer- ator | Denom- inator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 124 | ||||||
| White | 1990 | 24.1% | 23.6% | 24.7% | 5,833 | 24,181 |
| White | 1991 | 23.0% | 22.5% | 23.6% | 5,607 | 24,330 |
| White | 1992 | 22.7% | 22.2% | 23.2% | 5,330 | 23,487 |
| White | 1993 | 23.2% | 22.7% | 23.8% | 5,438 | 23,439 |
| White | 1994 | 22.3% | 21.7% | 22.8% | 5,155 | 23,151 |
| White | 1995 | 21.2% | 20.7% | 21.8% | 4,761 | 22,414 |
| White | 1996 | 21.6% | 21.0% | 22.1% | 4,783 | 22,182 |
| White | 1997 | 22.3% | 21.8% | 22.9% | 4,832 | 21,668 |
| White | 1998 | 22.8% | 22.2% | 23.4% | 4,828 | 21,192 |
| White | 1999 | 23.5% | 23.0% | 24.1% | 4,835 | 20,544 |
| White | 2000 | 24.8% | 24.2% | 25.4% | 5,179 | 20,899 |
| White | 2001 | 26.0% | 25.4% | 26.6% | 5,225 | 20,107 |
| White | 2002 | 28.9% | 28.3% | 29.5% | 5,663 | 19,597 |
| White | 2003 | 31.2% | 30.6% | 31.9% | 6,186 | 19,797 |
| White | 2004 | 33.0% | 32.3% | 33.7% | 6,232 | 18,881 |
| White | 2005 | 34.9% | 34.2% | 35.6% | 6,384 | 18,290 |
| White | 2006 | 35.7% | 35.0% | 36.4% | 6,389 | 17,874 |
| White | 2007 | 36.9% | 36.1% | 37.6% | 6,560 | 17,801 |
| White | 2008 | 35.8% | 35.1% | 36.6% | 6,136 | 17,124 |
| White | 2009 | 37.1% | 36.4% | 37.8% | 6,170 | 16,625 |
| White | 2010 | 34.8% | 34.1% | 35.6% | 5,704 | 16,380 |
| White | 2011 | 34.7% | 34.0% | 35.5% | 5,604 | 16,137 |
| White | 2012 | 34.9% | 34.2% | 35.7% | 5,403 | 15,472 |
| White | 2013 | 32.6% | 31.9% | 33.3% | 5,055 | 15,509 |
| White | 2014 | 31.4% | 30.7% | 32.2% | 4,815 | 15,325 |
| White | 2015 | 30.0% | 29.3% | 30.8% | 4,547 | 15,133 |
| White | 2016 | 29.3% | 28.6% | 30.0% | 4,643 | 15,831 |
| White | 2017 | 28.2% | 27.5% | 28.9% | 4,507 | 15,970 |
| White | 2018 | 26.6% | 25.9% | 27.3% | 4,150 | 15,597 |
| White | 2019 | 25.6% | 25.0% | 26.3% | 3,935 | 15,349 |
| White | 2020 | 24.4% | 23.7% | 25.0% | 3,765 | 15,456 |
| Black | 1990 | 21.2% | 20.2% | 22.2% | 1,370 | 6,454 |
| Black | 1991 | 20.8% | 19.8% | 21.8% | 1,450 | 6,978 |
| Black | 1992 | 20.3% | 19.4% | 21.3% | 1,356 | 6,665 |
| Black | 1993 | 21.9% | 20.9% | 22.9% | 1,473 | 6,735 |
| Black | 1994 | 22.1% | 21.1% | 23.1% | 1,494 | 6,767 |
| Black | 1995 | 20.3% | 19.3% | 21.3% | 1,239 | 6,101 |
| Black | 1996 | 21.7% | 20.7% | 22.8% | 1,293 | 5,952 |
| Black | 1997 | 23.5% | 22.4% | 24.7% | 1,337 | 5,679 |
| Black | 1998 | 24.9% | 23.8% | 26.0% | 1,427 | 5,739 |
| Black | 1999 | 24.0% | 22.9% | 25.2% | 1,323 | 5,507 |
| Black | 2000 | 27.4% | 26.3% | 28.6% | 1,525 | 5,560 |
| Black | 2001 | 26.7% | 25.5% | 27.9% | 1,469 | 5,509 |
| Black | 2002 | 29.3% | 28.0% | 30.5% | 1,574 | 5,380 |
| Black | 2003 | 32.1% | 30.8% | 33.4% | 1,675 | 5,217 |
| Black | 2004 | 33.8% | 32.5% | 35.1% | 1,730 | 5,114 |
| Black | 2005 | 35.3% | 34.0% | 36.6% | 1,849 | 5,232 |
| Black | 2006 | 34.8% | 33.6% | 36.1% | 1,856 | 5,328 |
| Black | 2007 | 35.1% | 33.8% | 36.4% | 1,947 | 5,546 |
| Black | 2008 | 36.5% | 35.2% | 37.8% | 2,037 | 5,583 |
| Black | 2009 | 36.3% | 35.0% | 37.6% | 1,961 | 5,397 |
| Black | 2010 | 36.0% | 34.7% | 37.3% | 1,873 | 5,208 |
| Black | 2011 | 36.0% | 34.7% | 37.3% | 1,822 | 5,059 |
| Black | 2012 | 36.4% | 35.1% | 37.7% | 1,861 | 5,112 |
| Black | 2013 | 34.9% | 33.5% | 36.2% | 1,643 | 4,711 |
| Black | 2014 | 34.1% | 32.7% | 35.5% | 1,536 | 4,504 |
| Black | 2015 | 32.5% | 31.1% | 33.9% | 1,408 | 4,331 |
| Black | 2016 | 32.6% | 31.2% | 34.0% | 1,418 | 4,347 |
| Black | 2017 | 31.9% | 30.6% | 33.4% | 1,354 | 4,238 |
| Black | 2018 | 31.5% | 30.1% | 32.9% | 1,358 | 4,313 |
| Black | 2019 | 31.5% | 30.1% | 32.9% | 1,298 | 4,123 |
| Black | 2020 | 29.9% | 28.5% | 31.4% | 1,174 | 3,923 |
| Hispanic | 1990 | 23.4% | 22.3% | 24.5% | 1,309 | 5,599 |
| Hispanic | 1991 | 22.6% | 21.5% | 23.7% | 1,328 | 5,881 |
| Hispanic | 1992 | 23.3% | 22.2% | 24.4% | 1,394 | 5,988 |
| Hispanic | 1993 | 23.7% | 22.6% | 24.8% | 1,454 | 6,142 |
| Hispanic | 1994 | 21.8% | 20.8% | 22.9% | 1,402 | 6,422 |
| Hispanic | 1995 | 20.4% | 19.5% | 21.4% | 1,334 | 6,525 |
| Hispanic | 1996 | 21.0% | 20.1% | 22.0% | 1,420 | 6,755 |
| Hispanic | 1997 | 22.2% | 21.2% | 23.2% | 1,520 | 6,843 |
| Hispanic | 1998 | 23.2% | 22.3% | 24.3% | 1,623 | 6,982 |
| Hispanic | 1999 | 23.4% | 22.4% | 24.4% | 1,653 | 7,069 |
| Hispanic | 2000 | 24.6% | 23.7% | 25.6% | 1,895 | 7,695 |
| Hispanic | 2001 | 24.7% | 23.7% | 25.6% | 1,984 | 8,041 |
| Hispanic | 2002 | 25.4% | 24.5% | 26.4% | 2,115 | 8,322 |
| Hispanic | 2003 | 27.9% | 27.0% | 28.8% | 2,509 | 9,000 |
| Hispanic | 2004 | 30.3% | 29.3% | 31.2% | 2,806 | 9,269 |
| Hispanic | 2005 | 31.4% | 30.4% | 32.4% | 2,852 | 9,083 |
| Hispanic | 2006 | 32.8% | 31.8% | 33.7% | 3,143 | 9,595 |
| Hispanic | 2007 | 32.8% | 31.8% | 33.7% | 3,193 | 9,748 |
| Hispanic | 2008 | 32.5% | 31.6% | 33.4% | 3,072 | 9,450 |
| Hispanic | 2009 | 33.6% | 32.6% | 34.5% | 3,080 | 9,180 |
| Hispanic | 2010 | 33.5% | 32.5% | 34.5% | 2,893 | 8,645 |
| Hispanic | 2011 | 33.1% | 32.1% | 34.1% | 2,809 | 8,491 |
| Hispanic | 2012 | 33.7% | 32.7% | 34.8% | 2,784 | 8,249 |
| Hispanic | 2013 | 33.1% | 32.1% | 34.1% | 2,651 | 8,011 |
| Hispanic | 2014 | 32.2% | 31.2% | 33.2% | 2,546 | 7,913 |
| Hispanic | 2015 | 30.7% | 29.7% | 31.7% | 2,469 | 8,048 |
| Hispanic | 2016 | 29.7% | 28.7% | 30.7% | 2,412 | 8,121 |
| Hispanic | 2017 | 30.0% | 29.0% | 31.0% | 2,431 | 8,114 |
| Hispanic | 2018 | 27.7% | 26.7% | 28.6% | 2,277 | 8,231 |
| Hispanic | 2019 | 26.0% | 25.1% | 27.0% | 2,175 | 8,356 |
| Hispanic | 2020 | 25.8% | 24.8% | 26.7% | 2,183 | 8,472 |
| Asian | 1990 | 23.8% | 21.6% | 26.2% | 317 | 1,330 |
| Asian | 1991 | 23.9% | 21.8% | 26.1% | 364 | 1,525 |
| Asian | 1992 | 22.3% | 20.4% | 24.2% | 409 | 1,837 |
| Asian | 1993 | 24.5% | 22.5% | 26.5% | 446 | 1,824 |
| Asian | 1994 | 20.4% | 18.6% | 22.3% | 386 | 1,896 |
| Asian | 1995 | 21.2% | 19.5% | 23.1% | 447 | 2,105 |
| Asian | 1996 | 21.1% | 19.6% | 22.7% | 554 | 2,624 |
| Asian | 1997 | 23.8% | 22.3% | 25.4% | 690 | 2,897 |
| Asian | 1998 | 22.7% | 21.2% | 24.2% | 682 | 3,006 |
| Asian | 1999 | 24.1% | 22.6% | 25.6% | 768 | 3,191 |
| Asian | 2000 | 24.4% | 23.0% | 25.8% | 902 | 3,702 |
| Asian | 2001 | 25.0% | 23.6% | 26.3% | 987 | 3,955 |
| Asian | 2002 | 26.0% | 24.6% | 27.4% | 1,023 | 3,939 |
| Asian | 2003 | 28.6% | 27.2% | 30.0% | 1,213 | 4,243 |
| Asian | 2004 | 31.1% | 29.7% | 32.5% | 1,308 | 4,206 |
| Asian | 2005 | 33.4% | 31.9% | 34.8% | 1,372 | 4,113 |
| Asian | 2006 | 33.8% | 32.4% | 35.2% | 1,432 | 4,236 |
| Asian | 2007 | 35.9% | 34.5% | 37.3% | 1,608 | 4,480 |
| Asian | 2008 | 37.7% | 36.3% | 39.1% | 1,728 | 4,586 |
| Asian | 2009 | 39.7% | 38.2% | 41.1% | 1,740 | 4,384 |
| Asian | 2010 | 37.4% | 36.0% | 38.9% | 1,609 | 4,301 |
| Asian | 2011 | 38.2% | 36.8% | 39.6% | 1,670 | 4,373 |
| Asian | 2012 | 36.8% | 35.4% | 38.2% | 1,679 | 4,561 |
| Asian | 2013 | 35.7% | 34.2% | 37.1% | 1,506 | 4,223 |
| Asian | 2014 | 34.3% | 32.9% | 35.7% | 1,481 | 4,320 |
| Asian | 2015 | 33.7% | 32.3% | 35.1% | 1,427 | 4,235 |
| Asian | 2016 | 33.4% | 32.0% | 34.7% | 1,662 | 4,982 |
| Asian | 2017 | 32.3% | 31.0% | 33.6% | 1,556 | 4,813 |
| Asian | 2018 | 30.3% | 28.9% | 31.6% | 1,418 | 4,687 |
| Asian | 2019 | 29.5% | 28.2% | 30.8% | 1,347 | 4,571 |
| Asian | 2020 | 30.2% | 28.8% | 31.6% | 1,284 | 4,254 |
Data Notes
This is Healthy New Jersey 2020 (HNJ2020) Objective MCH-14. Data for White, Black, and Asian do not include Hispanics. Hispanic ethnicity includes persons of any race.Data Source
Birth Certificate Database, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of HealthLow-Risk Cesarean Deliveries by Race/Ethnicity, New Jersey 2020
| Race/Ethnicity | Percentage of Low-Risk Births | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Numer- ator | Denom- inator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 6 | ||||||
| White | 24.4% | 23.7% | 25.0% | 3,765 | 15,456 | |
| Black | 29.9% | 28.5% | 31.4% | 1,174 | 3,923 | |
| Hispanic | 25.8% | 24.8% | 26.7% | 2,183 | 8,472 | |
| Asian | 30.2% | 28.8% | 31.6% | 1,284 | 4,254 | |
| New Jersey | 26.2% | 25.8% | 26.7% | 8,754 | 33,356 | |
| United States | 25.9% | 310,303 | ||||
Data Notes
Data for White, Black, and Asian do not include Hispanics. Hispanic ethnicity includes persons of any race.Data Source
Birth Certificate Database, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of HealthLow-Risk Cesarean Deliveries by County, New Jersey, 2020
| County | Percentage of Low-Risk Births | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Numer- ator | Denom- inator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record Count: 23 | ||||||
| Atlantic | 29.0% | 26.1% | 32.2% | 258 | 889 | |
| Bergen | 28.3% | 26.8% | 29.9% | 893 | 3,154 | |
| Burlington | 22.6% | 20.6% | 24.8% | 343 | 1,517 | |
| Camden | 20.3% | 18.5% | 22.2% | 387 | 1,909 | |
| Cape May | 29.4% | 24.0% | 35.6% | 73 | 248 | |
| Cumberland | 18.9% | 15.6% | 22.6% | 97 | 514 | |
| Essex | 27.2% | 25.6% | 28.8% | 862 | 3,171 | |
| Gloucester | 21.1% | 18.6% | 23.9% | 195 | 924 | |
| Hudson | 29.8% | 28.4% | 31.2% | 1,216 | 4,086 | |
| Hunterdon | 26.3% | 21.8% | 31.4% | 90 | 342 | |
| Mercer | 24.6% | 22.3% | 27.0% | 332 | 1,351 | |
| Middlesex | 29.3% | 27.7% | 31.0% | 879 | 3,002 | |
| Monmouth | 25.0% | 23.1% | 26.9% | 512 | 2,050 | |
| Morris | 27.1% | 25.0% | 29.4% | 450 | 1,659 | |
| Ocean | 18.5% | 16.9% | 20.2% | 426 | 2,304 | |
| Passaic | 29.7% | 27.8% | 31.8% | 605 | 2,036 | |
| Salem | 29.1% | 22.8% | 36.4% | 53 | 182 | |
| Somerset | 27.1% | 24.5% | 29.9% | 289 | 1,067 | |
| Sussex | 26.8% | 22.9% | 31.0% | 128 | 478 | |
| Union | 26.8% | 25.0% | 28.7% | 581 | 2,167 | |
| Warren | 27.8% | 22.9% | 33.2% | 85 | 306 | |
| New Jersey | 26.2% | 25.8% | 26.7% | 8,754 | 33,356 | |
| United States | 25.9% | 310,303 | ||||
Data Source
Birth Certificate Database, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of HealthReferences and Community Resources
1. [https://nurturenj.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20210120-Nurture-NJ-Strategic-Plan.pdf#page=61 Nurture NJ 2021 Strategic Plan], pages 61-62. Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM, Uddin SFG. Maternal morbidity for vaginal and cesarean deliveries, according to previous cesarean history: New data from the birth certificate, 2013. National vital statistics reports; vol 64 no 4. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2015. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_04.pdf] Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. National vital statistics reports; vol 63 no 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_06.pdf] C-section Rates for NJ Hospitals: [https://nj.gov/health/maternal/] National Center for Health Statistics Method of Delivery Fast Stats: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm]
Page Content Updated On 05/19/2022,
Published on 05/19/2022
