51 Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands 63. Healy S, Humphreys E, Kennedy C. Midwives’ and obstetricians’ perceptions of risk and its impact on clinical practice and decision-making in labour: An integrative review. Women Birth 2016, 29(2):107-116. 64. Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med 2002, 9(11):1184-1204. 65. Eldenburg L, Waller WS. Decision-case mix model for analyzing variation in cesarean rates. Med Decis Making 2001, 21(3):170-179. 66. Styles M, Cheyne H, O’Carroll R, Greig F, Dagge-Bell F, Niven C. The development of research tools used in the STORK Study (the Scottish Trial of Refer or Keep) to explore midwives’ intrapartum decision making. Midwifery 2011, 27(5):576-581. 67. De Jong JD, Groenewegen PP, Westert GP. Mutual influences of general practitioners in partnerships. Soc Sci Med 2003, 57(8):1515-1524. 68. Pel M, Heres MH, Hart AA, Van der Veen F, Treffers PE. Provider-associated factors in obstetric interventions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995, 61(2):129-134. 69. Mead MM, Kornbrot D. The influence of maternity units’ intrapartum intervention rates and midwives’ risk perception for women suitable for midwifery-led care. Midwifery 2004, 20(1):61-71. 70. Zhang J, Geerts C, Hukkelhoven C, Offerhaus P, Zwart J, De Jonge A. Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes. BJOG 2016, 123(5):754-761. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw