skip to main content
10.1145/3472813.3472825acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicmhiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A comparison of different regression and classification methods for predicting the length of hospital stay after cesarean sections

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cesarean section (CS) is one of the main causes of hospitalization in developed countries. Although no benefits have been shown for the mother and baby, the frequency of CS has increased over the past few decades. The control of the length of stay (LOS) for such a widespread procedure therefore becomes strategic for any healthcare facility. The aim of this study is to investigate causes and factors that determine an increase in the LOS in the case of CS delivery. Multiple linear regression analysis and machine learning algorithms are used to build and compare different models for LOS prediction, with the purpose of offering a potential support tool for the planning and programming of CS procedures in healthcare facilities.

References

  1. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse D Y, Barros A J D, Barros F C, Juan L, Moller A-B, Say L, Hosseinpoor A R, Yi M, de Lyra Rabello Neto D and Temmerman M 2018 Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections The Lancet 392 1341–8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Eufrásio L S, Souza D E de, Fonsêca A M C da, Viana E de S R, Eufrásio L S, Souza D E de, Fonsêca A M C da and Viana E de S R 2018 Brazilian regional differences and factors associated with the prevalence of cesarean sections Fisioter. Em Mov. 31Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pertile R, Pavanello L, Soffiati M, Manica L and Piffer S 2018 Length of stay for childbirth in Trentino (North-East of Italy): the impact of maternal characteristics and organizational features of the maternity unit on the probability of early discharge of healthy, term infants Eur. J. Pediatr. 177 155–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Aghababaei S and Matinnia N 2020 Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 33 3867–72Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Patel B, Kedia N, Shah S, Agrawal S, Patel V B and Patel A B 2020 Changing trends in cesarean section: from 1950 to 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Franz M B and Husslein P W 2010 Obstetrical management of the older gravida Womens Health Lond. Engl. 6 463–8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Murray S F 2000 Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study BMJ 321 1501–5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Wiklund I, Edman G and Andolf E 2007 Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 86 451–6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sahlin M, Carlander-Klint A-K, Hildingsson I and Wiklund I 2013 First-time mothers’ wish for a planned caesarean section: deeply rooted emotions Midwifery 29 447–52Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofberg K and Ward M R 2004 Fear of childbirth, tocophobia, and mental health in mothers: the obstetric-psychiatric interface Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 47 527–34Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Liu S, Liston R M, Joseph K S, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer M S, and Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System 2007 Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. J. Assoc. Medicale Can. 176 455–60Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lapinsky S E 2013 Obstetric infections Crit. Care Clin. 29 509–20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark S L, Christmas J T, Frye D R, Meyers J A and Perlin J B 2014 Maternal mortality in the United States: predictability and the impact of protocols on fatal postcesarean pulmonary embolism and hypertension-related intracranial hemorrhage Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 211 32.e1-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyell D J 2011 Adhesions and perioperative complications of repeat cesarean delivery Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 205 S11-18Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P and Langer M 2003 Elective cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 82 834–40Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Grivell R M, Barreto M P and Dodd J M 2011 The influence of intrapartum factors on risk of uterine rupture and successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery Clin. Perinatol. 38 265–75Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Cegolon L, Mastrangelo G, Maso G, Pozzo G D, Heymann W C, Ronfani L and Barbone F 2020 Determinants of length of stay after cesarean sections in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005–2015 Sci. Rep. 10 19238Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Cantone D, Lombardi A, Assunto D A, Piccolo M, Rizzo N, Pelullo C P and Attena F 2018 A standardized antenatal class reduces the rate of cesarean section in southern Italy Medicine (Baltimore) 97Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Cantone D, Pelullo C P, Cancellieri M and Attena F 2017 Can antenatal classes reduce the rate of cesarean section in southern Italy? Women Birth 30 e83–8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Betrán A P, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni M R, Zhang J, Musana O, Wanyonyi S Z, Gülmezoglu A M and Downe S 2018 Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies The Lancet 392 1358–68Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Romano M, D'Addio G, Clemente F, Ponsiglione A M, Improta G and Cesarelli M 2014 Symbolic dynamic and frequency analysis in foetal monitoring 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) pp 1–5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Romano M, Bifulco P, Ponsiglione A M, Gargiulo G D, Amato F and Cesarelli M 2018 Evaluation of floatingline and foetal heart rate variability Biomed. Signal Process. Control 39 185–96Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Romano M, Iuppariello L, Ponsiglione A M, Improta G, Bifulco P and Cesarelli M 2016 Frequency and Time Domain Analysis of Foetal Heart Rate Variability with Traditional Indexes: A Critical Survey Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Romano M, Bifulco P, Ruffo M, Improta G, Clemente F and Cesarelli M 2016 Software for computerised analysis of cardiotocographic traces Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 124 121–37Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Cesarelli M, Romano M, Bifulco P, Improta G and D'Addio G 2013 Prognostic decision support using symbolic dynamics in CTG monitoring 13th EFMI Special Topic Conference: Data and Knowledge for Medical Decision Support, EFMI STC 2013 vol 186 pp 140–4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cesarelli M, Romano M, Bifulco P, Improta G and D'Addio G 2012 An application of symbolic dynamics for FHRV assessment Studies in Health Technology and Informatics - 24th Medical Informatics in Europe Conference, MIE 2012 vol 180 pp 123–7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan J A, Hankins M E, Wang Y, Hutchinson D, Sams H L, Voltz J H, McCathran C E, Kaye A D and Lewis D F 2020 Prolonged Fetal Heart Rate Decelerations in Labor: Can We Reduce Unplanned Primary Cesarean Sections in This Group? Adv. Ther. 37 4325–35Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Eden R D, Evans M I, Evans S M and Schifrin B S 2018 Reengineering Electronic Fetal Monitoring Interpretation: Using the Fetal Reserve Index to Anticipate the Need for Emergent Operative Delivery Reprod. Sci. 25 487–97Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Straface G, Scambia G and Zanardo V 2017 Does ST analysis of fetal ECG reduce cesarean section rate for fetal distress? J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 30 1799–802Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Cegolon L, Campbell O, Alberico S, Montico M, Mastrangelo G, Monasta L, Ronfani L and Barbone F 2019 Length of stay following vaginal deliveries: A population based study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015 PLOS ONE 14 e0204919Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Grullon K E and Grimes D A 1997 The safety of early postpartum discharge: a review and critique Obstet. Gynecol. 90 860–5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Gruskay J A, Fu M, Basques B A, Bohl D D, Buerba R A, Webb M L and Grauer J N 2016 Factors Affecting Length of Stay and Complications After Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Study of 2164 Patients From The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database (ACS NSQIP) Clin. Spine Surg. 29 E34-42Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Trunfio T A, Scala A, Vecchia A D, Marra A and Borrelli A 2021 Multiple Regression Model to Predict Length of Hospital Stay for Patients Undergoing Femur Fracture Surgery at “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona” University Hospital 8th European Medical and Biological Engineering Conference IFMBE Proceedings ed T Jarm, A Cvetkoska, S Mahnič-Kalamiza and D Miklavcic (Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 840–7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Scala A, Ponsiglione A M, Loperto I, Della Vecchia A, Borrelli A, Russo G, Triassi M and Improta G 2021 Lean Six Sigma Approach for Reducing Length of Hospital Stay for Patients with Femur Fracture in a University Hospital Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 18 2843Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Mekhaldi R N, Caulier P, Chaabane S, Chraibi A and Piechowiak S 2020 Using Machine Learning Models to Predict the Length of Stay in a Hospital Setting Trends and Innovations in Information Systems and Technologies Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ed Á Rocha, H Adeli, L P Reis, S Costanzo, I Orovic and F Moreira (Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 202–11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Bacchi S, Tan Y, Oakden‐Rayner L, Jannes J, Kleinig T and Koblar S Machine Learning in the Prediction of Medical Inpatient Length of Stay Intern. Med. J. n/aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Wen S W, Liu S, Marcoux S and Fowler D 1998 Trends and variations in length of hospital stay for childbirth in Canada CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. J. Assoc. Medicale Can. 158 875–80Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ricciardi C, Improta G, Amato F, Cesarelli G and Romano M 2020 Classifying the type of delivery from cardiotocographic signals: A machine learning approach Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 196 105712Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Improta G, Ricciardi C, Amato F, D'Addio G, Cesarelli M and Romano M 2020 Efficacy of machine learning in predicting the kind of delivery by cardiotocography IFMBE Proc. vol 76, ed Henriques J., de Carvalho P., and Neves N. (Springer) pp 793–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Saleem S, Naqvi S S, Manzoor T, Saeed A, ur Rehman N and Mirza J 2019 A Strategy for Classification of “Vaginal vs. Cesarean Section” Delivery: Bivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition of Cardiotocographic Recordings Front. Physiol. 10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Fergus P, Selvaraj M and Chalmers C 2018 Machine learning ensemble modelling to classify caesarean section and vaginal delivery types using Cardiotocography traces Comput. Biol. Med. 93 7–16Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Italian Ministry of Health - Direzione Generale della Programmazione sanitaria Ufficio VI 2015 Rapporto annuale sull'attività di ricovero ospedaliero - Dati SDO 2014 (Rome: Italian Ministry of Health)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Coates E, Fuller G, Hind D, Wrench I J, Wilson M J and Stephens T 2016 Enhanced recovery pathway for elective caesarean section Int. J. Obstet. Anesth. 27 94–5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Nurwahyuni A, Sjaaf A C, Hapsari W P and Nugraha R R 2018 Compliance with Clinical Pathway for Cesarean Section Before and After the Implementation of JKN in Hospital X KnE Life Sci. 29-40-29–40Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Coates E, Fuller G, Wrench I J, Wilson M J, Stephens T and Hind D 2016 A quality improvement clinical pathway for enhanced recovery after elective Caesarean Section: results of a consensus exercise and surveyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Scala A, Trunfio T A, Vecchia A D, Marra A and Borrelli A 2021 Lean Six Sigma Approach to Implement a Femur Fracture Care Pathway at “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona” University Hospital 8th European Medical and Biological Engineering Conference IFMBE Proceedings ed T Jarm, A Cvetkoska, S Mahnič-Kalamiza and D Miklavcic (Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 740–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Improta G, Ricciardi C, Borrelli A, D'alessandro A, Verdoliva C and Cesarelli M 2019 The application of six sigma to reduce the pre-operative length of hospital stay at the hospital Antonio Cardarelli Int. J. Lean Six SigmaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Foni N O, Costa L A V, Paião I D, Oliveira I O de, Carvalho R T de, Lenza M, Antonioli E and Ferretti M 2020 Clinical pathway improves medical practice in total knee arthroplasty PLOS ONE 15 e0232881Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. A comparison of different regression and classification methods for predicting the length of hospital stay after cesarean sections

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICMHI '21: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics
      May 2021
      347 pages
      ISBN:9781450389846
      DOI:10.1145/3472813

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 October 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format