The DiAMOND trial protocol: A randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section [ISRCTN8437722]

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Volumn 4, Issue , 2004, Pages

  Montgomery, Alan A ^a   Emmett, Clare ^b   Fahey, Tom ^b   Gregor, Peter ^b   Hollinghurst, Sandra ^b   Jones, Claire ^b   Lovering, Beverley ^b   Munro, Irene ^b   Murphy, Deirdre ^b   Patel, Roshini ^b   Peters, Tim ^b   Ricketts, Ian ^b   Schlegelmilch, Anne ^b   Shaw, Ali ^b   Vedhara, Kav ^b   Warren, Kate ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EMERGENCY SURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GESTATION PERIOD; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED KINGDOM; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

EID: 12944254281     PISSN: 14712393     EISSN: 14712393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-4-25     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit: The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London, RCOG Press; 2001.
2. Wagner M: Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000, 356:1677-1680.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Evaluation of cesarean delivery. Washington, DC, ACOG; 2000.
4. Department of Health: Changing Childbirth. Part 1: Report of the Expert Maternity Group. London, HMSO; 1993.
5. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP: Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. NEJM 2001, 345:3-8.
6. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R: Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001, 358: 203-1207.
7. Rowe-Murray HJ, Fisher JRW: Operative intervention in delivery is associated with compromised early mother-infant interaction. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001, 108: 068-1075.
8. Murray SF: Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 2000, 321:1501-1505.
9. Graham WJ, Hundley V, McCheyne AL, Hall MH, Gurney E, Milne J: An investigation of women's involvement in the decision to deliver by caesarean section. B J Obstet Gynaecol 1999, 106: 13-220.
10. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA: Elective primary cesarean delivery. NEJM 2003, 348:946-950.
11. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health: Caesarean Section. London, RCOG Press; 2004.
12. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A: What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 1999, 319:780-782.
13. Coulter A: Paternalism or partnership? BMJ 1999, 319:719-720.
14. McNutt RA: Shared medical decision making - problems, process, progress. JAMA 2004, 292:2516-2518.
15. Robinson A, Thomson R: Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001, 10 (Suppl I : 34-i38.
16. Montgomery AA, Fahey T: How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Quality in Health Care 2001, 10 (Suppl I):i39-i43.
17. Edwards A, Elwyn G: The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical medicine. JAMA 1999, 282:779-780.
18. O'Connor AM, Stacy D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tait V, Tetroe J, Fiset V, Barry M, Jones J: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003.
19. Estabrooks C, Goel V, Thiel E, Pinfold P, Sawka C, Williams I: Decision aids: are they worth it? A systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2001, 6:170-182.
20. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin JM: Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1997, 176:419-425.
21. Shorten A, Chamberlain M, Shorten B, Kariminia A: Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Education and Counseling 2004, 52:307-313.
22. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Eccles M, Rovner D: Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet 2001, 358:571-574.
23. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ: A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. Br J Gen Pract 2003, 53:446-453.
24. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A: Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002, 324: 27-830.
25. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D: Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 2 - Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997, 17:126-135.
26. Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS: Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3 - Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997, 17:136-141.
27. Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS: Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 4 - Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997, 17: 42-151.
28. O'Connor AM: Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995, 15:25-30.
29. O'Connor AM: Decisional Conflict Scale. 2004 [http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/Eval_Meas/Tools/DCS_Gen_Numbered.pdf].
30. Marteau TM, Bekker H: The development of a six-item shortform of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992, 31:301-306.
31. Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3rd edition. London, Sage; 2002.
32. Hammersley M, Atkinson P: Ethnography. Principles in practice London, Routledge; 1996:1-323.
33. Kreuger RA: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research 2nd edition. London, Sage; 1994.
34. Personal Social Services Research Unit 2004 [http://www.pssru.ac.uk/].
35. British National Formulary 2004 [http://www.bnf.org/bnf/].
36. Department of Health 2004 http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ OrganisationPolicy/FinanceAndPlanning/NHSReferenceCosts/fs/en