Economic evaluation of the DiAMOND randomized trial: Cost and outcomes of 2 decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous cesarean section

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 453-463

  Hollinghurst, Sandra ^a   Emmett, Clare ^a   Peters, Tim J ^a   Watson, Helen ^a   Fahey, Tom ^b   Murphy, Deirdre J ^c,d   Montgomery, Alan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND   (Ireland)

^c TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^d Tallaght and Coombe Women's and Infant's University Hospital   (Ireland)

Author keywords

cost consequences; decision aid; economic evaluation; repeat cesarean section; vaginal birth after cesarean

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CESAREAN SECTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77954951048     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09353195     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. England & Wales Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press ; 2001.
2. Information Centre Community Health Statistics. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2005-2006. National Statistics. London: Information Centre, 2006.
3. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Menacker F., Sutton PD, Matthews TJ Preliminary births for 2004: infant and maternal health. Available from: www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelimbirths04/prelimbirths04health. htm
4. Nassar N., Sullivan E. Australia's Mothers and Babies 1999. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit ; 2001.
5. Villar J., Valladares E., Wojdyla D., et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006 ; 367: 1819-1829.
6. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guideline 13. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence ; 2004.
7. Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ Women's experience of decision-making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006 ; 113: 1438-1445.
8. York S., Briscoe L., Walkinshaw S., Lavender T. Why women choose to have a repeat caesarean section. Br J Midwifery. 2005 ; 13: 440-445.
9. O'Connor AM, Stacey D., Entwistle V., et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003 ;(1). CD001431.
10. Murray E., Davis H., Tai SS, Coulter A., Gray A., Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. BMJ. 2001 ; 323: 490-493. (Pubitemid 32822294)
11. Murray E., Davis H., Tai SS, Coulter A., Gray A., Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ. 2001 ; 323: 493-496. (Pubitemid 32822295)
12. Kennedy AD, Sculpher MJ, Coulter A., et al. Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 ; 288: 2701-2708.
13. Montgomery A., The DiAMOND study group. The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of next delivery among women with a previous caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2004 ; 4: 25-31.
14. Emmett C., Murphy D., Patel R., et al. Decision making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids. Health Expect. 2007 ; 10: 161-172. (Pubitemid 46808891)
15. Montgomery AA, Emmett CE, Fahey T., et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007 ; 334: 1305-1309. (Pubitemid 46999827)
16. Ottawa Health Decision Centre. User manual: decisional conflict scale(s). 2006. Available from: http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User-Manuals/UM- Decisional-Conflict.pdf
17. Curtis L., Netten A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2005. Kent: PSSRU University of Kent ; 2006.
18. Beale N., Hollinghurst S., Taylor G., Gwynne M., Peart C., Straker-Cook D. The costs of care in general practice: patients compared by the council tax valuation band of their home address. Fam Pract. 2005 ; 22: 317-322.
19. Salisbury C., Chalder M., Manku-Scott, et al. The National Evaluation of NHS Walk-in Centres: Final Report. Bristol: University of Bristol, 2002.
20. Munro J., Nicholl J., O'Cathain A., Knowles E., Morgan A. An Evaluation of NHS Direct First Wave Sites: Final Report of the Phase 1 Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2001.
21. Department of Health. National tariff 2005-06. Available from: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-4091529
22. Department of Health. Reference cost index 2004. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-4105545
23. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. Ed. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ; 2005.
24. van Buuren S., Boshuizen HC, Knook DL Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1999 ; 18: 681-694.
25. Frost J., Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ Women's views on the use of decision aids for decision-making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: qualitative interview study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. In press.
26. James M., Stokes E. Harnessing Information for Health Economics Analysis. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006.
27. Information Centre for Health and Social Care. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2004-05. London: The Information Centre ; 2006.