Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: A review of the evidence

Birth

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 49-60

  Eden, Karen B ^a   Hashima, Jason N ^b   Osterweil, Patricia ^a   Nygren, Peggy ^a   Guise, Jeanne Marie ^a,b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAUCASIAN; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONVALESCENCE; DATA BASE; ELECTIVE SURGERY; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FAMILY LIFE; FEMALE; FETUS RISK; HUMAN; LABOR; MATERNAL WELFARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; REVIEW; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY RELATIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; LABOR, INDUCED; MOTHERS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RISK FACTORS; TRIAL OF LABOR; UNITED STATES; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 1642367799     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.0274.x     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Births: Preliminary data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;51(11):4-5.
2. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
3. Guise JM, McDonagh M, Hashima J, Kraemer D, Eden K, Berlin M, Nygren P, Osterweil P, Krages KP, Helfand M. Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section (VBAC). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 71 (prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-97-0018). AHRQ Publication No. 03-E018. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2003.
4. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women's request for a cesarean section: A critique of the literature. Birth 2000;27:256-263.
5. Roberts RG, Bell HS, Wall EM, et al. Trial of labor or repeated cesarean section: The woman's choice. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6:120-125.
6. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Methods of the third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(3S):21-35.
7. Anonymous. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. In: Khan KS, Riet G, Glanville J, et al, editors. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd ed): NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.: NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001. Access at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/ crd/report4.htm.
8. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin JM, and Childbirth Alternatives Post-Cesarean Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:419-425.
9. Kirk EP, Doyle KA, Leigh J, Garrard ML. Vaginal birth after cesarean or repeat cesarean section: Medical risks or social realities? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1398-1403; 1403-1395.
10. Kline J, Arias F. Analysis of factors determining the selection of repeated cesarean section or trial of labor in patients with histories of prior cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 1993; 38:289-292.
11. Martin JN, Harris BA, Huddleston JF, et al. Vaginal delivery following previous cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;146:255-263.
12. McClain CS. The making of a medical tradition: Vaginal birth after cesarean. Soc Sci Med 1990;31:203-210.
13. Meier PR, Porreco RP. Trial of labor following cesarean section: A two-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:671-678.
14. Melnikow J, Romano P, Gilbert WM, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean in California. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:421-426.
15. Fawcett J, Tulman L, Spedden J. Responses to vaginal birth after cesarean section. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1994;23:253-259.
16. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women's preference for a cesarean section: Incidence and associated factors. Birth 2001;28:101-110.
17. Lau TK, Wong SH, Li CY. A study of patient's acceptance towards vaginal birth after cesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;36:155-158.
18. Murphy MC, Harvey SM. Choice of a childbirth method after cesarean. Women Health 1989;15(2):67-85.
19. Abitbol MM, Castillo I, Taylor UB, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: The patient's point of view. Am Fam Physician 1993;47:129-134.
20. Joseph GF, Stedman CM, Robichaux AG. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: The impact of patient resistance to a trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164(6 Pt 1):1441-1444; 1444-1447.
21. Mould TA, Chong S, Spencer JA, Gallivan S. Women's involvement with the decision preceding their caesarean section and their degree of satisfaction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103: 1074-1077.
22. Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN. Patient preference the leading indication for elective caesarean section in public patients - results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospital. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;39: 207-214.
23. Dilks FM, Beal JA. Role of self-efficacy in birth choice. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 1997;11:1-9.
24. McClain CS. Patient decision making: The case of delivery method after a previous cesarean section. Cult Med Psychiatry 1987;11:495-508.
25. McClain CS. Why women choose trial of labor or repeat cesarean section. J Fam Pract 1985;21:210-216.
26. DeMott RK, Sandmire HF. The Green Bay cesarean section study. I. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1593-1599; 1599-1602.
27. Vimercati A, Greco P, Kardashi A, et al. Choice of cesarean section and perception of legal pressure. J Perinat Med 2000;28:111-117.