Choice of public versus private hospital for maternity care: a cross-sectional questionnaire study

So-Ling LAU; Jessica Yun-Pu LAW; Kwok-Keung TANG

doi:10.12809/hkjgom.20.2.01

Authors

So-Ling LAU
Jessica Yun-Pu LAW
Kwok-Keung TANG

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.20.2.01

Keywords:

Hospitals, private, Hospitals, public, Obstetrics, Patient satisfaction, Surveys and questionnaires

Abstract

Objective: To determine factors influencing the choice of public versus private hospital for maternity care and the satisfaction level of women on obstetric service.
Methods: Women who attended their first antenatal visit between 1 March 2018 and 30 April 2018 at the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital were contacted via telephone at 6 to 12 weeks after delivery to complete a questionnaire about (1) details of delivery, (2) factors affecting choice of hospital for maternal care, and (3) satisfaction towards obstetric services, whether to return to the same hospital for next delivery, and breastfeeding practices.
Results: 409 (89.1%) of 459 women completed the questionnaire. Of the 409 respondents, 308 (75.1%) delivered in our public hospital and 101 (24.6%) delivered in private hospitals. Those who chose to deliver in the private hospitals were more likely to be older (34.07 vs 32.56, p=0.007), primiparous (69.3% vs 52.3%, p=0.003), and have tertiary or higher education level (85.1% vs 54.9%, p<0.001). In the public hospital group, more women had normal vaginal delivery (57.5% vs 19.8%, p<0.001) and fewer women had Caesarean section (32.8% vs 77.2%, p<0.001). The
private hospital group had higher rating for antenatal service, with more women rated ≥4 (94.1% vs 81.8%, p=0.024). More women in the public hospital group than in the private hospital group would return for next delivery (93.8% vs 86.1%, p=0.014) and practiced full or partial breastfeeding (91.6% vs 73.3%, p<0.001).
Conclusion: The overall rating to both public and private obstetric services in Hong Kong is good. 24.6% of women chose delivery at private hospitals for reasons such as having designated doctor-in-charge, choice on mode of delivery, and safety issue. The Caesarean section rate was higher in women who chose delivery at private hospitals. Further studies are warranted to investigate the reasons why these women prefer Caesarean delivery.

References

Hong Kong’s Domestic Health Accounts: 2006/2007.

Emslie MJ, Campbell MK, Walker KA, Robertson S, Campbell A. Developing consumer-led maternity services: a survey of women’s views in a local healthcare setting. Health Expect 1999;2:195-207.

Cheyne H, Elders A, Hill D, Milburn E. Is maternity care in Scotland equitable? Results of a national maternity care survey. BMJ Open 2019;9:e023282.

Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. Available at: http://www.openepi.com.

Harris LE, Weinberger M, Tierney WM. Assessing inner-city patients’ hospital experiences. A controlled trial of telephone interviews versus mailed surveys. Med Care 1997;35:70-6.

Marcus AC, Crane LA. Telephone surveys in public health research. Med Care 1986;24:97-112.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2017;66:1.

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One 2016;11:e0148343.

Steel BJ, Jomeen J. Caesarean section by maternal request. Br J Midwifery 2015;23:624-9.

Young G. Intensive intervention for fear of childbirth did not reduce requests for caesarean section but decreased duration of vaginal labour. Evid Based Ment Health 2002;5:87.

Robson S, Carey A, Mishra R, Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women’s decision-making. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:415-20.

Munro S, Kornelsen J, Hutton E. Decision making in patient-initiated elective cesarean delivery: the influence of birth stories. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009;54:373-9.

Clews C. Normal birth and its meaning: a discussion paper. Evid Based Midwifery 2013;11:16-20.

Cheng KKN, Lee MMH. Rising incidence of morbidly adherent placenta and its association with previous caesarean section: a 15-year analysis in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2015;21:511-7.

To WW, Leung WC. Placenta previa and previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995;51:25-31.

Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1458-61.

Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA. Advantages of vaginal delivery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:167-83.

McKenna D, Tharmaratnam S, Mahsud S, Bailie C, Harper A, Dornan J. A randomized trial using ultrasound to identify the high-risk fetus in a low-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:626-32.

Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth 2002;29:225-50.

Clement S. Psychological perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. Churchill Livingstone; 1998.

Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjöden PO. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:86-90.

Lalor JG, Devane D. Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery 2007;23:13-22.

Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ. Women’s knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns 2002;11:265-76.