Understanding Risk, Patient and Provider Preferences, and Obstetrical Decision Making: Approach to Delivery After Cesarean

Seminars in Perinatology

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 331-336

  Kaimal, Anjali J ^a   Kuppermann, Miriam ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Patient provider communication; Risk communication; Shared decision making; Vaginal birth after cesarean

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DELIVERY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OBSTETRIC CARE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT SAFETY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 77956994779     PISSN: 01460005     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2010.05.006     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Greene M.F. Vaginal birth after Cesarean revisited. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:2647-2649.
2. Practice bulletin. Number 54: Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 104:203-212. ACOG.
3. Lyerly A.D., Mitchell L.M., Armstrong E.M., et al. Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:979-984.
4. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to Tango). Soc Sci Med 1997, 44:681-692.
5. Stewart B.M., Weston W., Mcwhinney I., et al. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method 1995, Sage Publications, London.
6. Legare F., O'Connor A.C., Graham I., et al. Supporting patients facing difficult health care decisions: Use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Can Fam Physician 2006, 52:476-477.
7. Practice bulletin 101; Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 113:451-461. ACOG.
8. Practice bulletin. Number 88: Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:1459-1467. ACOG.
9. Little M.O., Lyerly A.D., Mitchell L.M., et al. Mode of delivery: Toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:913-918.
10. Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber E.U., et al. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci 2004, 15:534-539.
11. Fagerlin A., Wang C., Ubel P.A. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Mak 2005, 25:398-405.
12. Nelson W., Reyna V.F., Fagerlin A., et al. Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Ann Behav Med 2008, 35:261-274.
13. Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., et al. Making numbers matter: Present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007, 31(suppl 1):S47-S56.
14. Wertz D.C., Sorenson J.R., Heeren T.C. Clients' interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 1986, 39:253-264.
15. Shiloh S., Sagi M. Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. Am J Med Genet 1989, 33:130-135.
16. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Keeton K., et al. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:e521-e526.
17. Lee D.H., Mehta M.D. Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: Effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion 2003, 43:779-787.
18. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century/Committee on Quality Health Care in America 2001, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
19. Eden K.B., Hashima J.N., Osterweil P., et al. Childbirth preferences after Cesarean birth: A review of the evidence. Birth 2004, 31:49-60.
20. Melnikow J., Romano P., Gilbert W.M., et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean in California. Obstet Gynecol 2001, 98:421-426.
21. Declercq E., Sakala C., Corry M., et al. Listening to Mothers. II: Report of the Second National Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences 2006, Childbirth Connection, New York.
22. Dodd J., Pearce E., Crowther C. Women's experiences and preferences following Caesarian birth. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 44:521-524.
23. Emmett C., Shaw A., Montgomery A., et al. Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous Caesarian section: The role of health professionals and information about health risks. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 113:1438-1445.
24. Kirk E.P., Doyle K.A., Leigh J., et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean or repeat Cesarean section: Medical risks or social realities?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990, 162:1398-1403. discussion 1403-1395.
25. Martin J.N., Harris B.A., Huddleston J.F., et al. Vaginal delivery following previous Cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983, 146:255-263.
26. Moffat M.A., Bell J.S., Porter M.A., et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a Caesarean section: A qualitative study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2007, 114:86-93.
27. McClain C.S. Why women choose trial of labor or repeat Cesarean section. J Fam Pract 1985, 21:210-216.
28. McClain C.S. Patient decision making: The case of delivery method after a previous Cesarean section. Cult Med Psychiatry 1987, 11:495-508.
29. McClain C.S. The making of a medical tradition: Vaginal birth after Cesarean. Soc Sci Med 1990, 31:203-210.
30. Angeja A.C., Washington A.E., Vargas J.E., et al. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: Which do they prefer and why?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 113:1253-1258.
31. Cleary-Goldman J., Cornelisse K., Simpson L.L., et al. Previous Cesaran delivery: Understanding and satisfaction with mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy in patients participating in a formal vaginal birth after Cesarean counseling program. Am J Perinatal 2005, 22:217-221.
32. Schindl M., Birner P., Reingrabner M., et al. Elective Cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: A comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003, 82:834-840.
33. Cahill A.G., Stamilio D.M., Odibo A.O., et al. Racial disparity in the success and complications of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111:654-658.
34. Cotzias C.S., Paterson-Brown S., Fisk N.M. Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective Caesarian section: A survey of current opinion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001, 97:15-16.
35. Walker S.P., McCarthy E.A., Ugoni A., et al. Cesarean delivery or vaginal birth: A survey of patient and clinician thresholds. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:67-72.
36. Bettes B.A., Coleman V.H., Zinberg S., et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: Obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:57-66.
37. Wu J.M., Hundley A.F., Visco A.G. Elective primary Cesarean delivery: Attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:301-306.
38. Coleman V.H., Erickson K., Schulkin J., et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: Practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists. J Reprod Med 2005, 50:261-266.
39. Kamal P., Dixon-Woods M., Kurinczuk J.J., et al. Factors influencing repeat Caesarean section: Qualitative exploratory study of obstetricians' and midwives' accounts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005, 112:1054-1060.
40. O'Connor A.M., Wennberg J.E., Legare F., et al. Toward the "tipping point": Decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff Millwood 2007, 26:716-725.
41. Saisto T., Salmela-Aro K., Nurmi J.E., et al. A randomized controlled trial of intervention in fear of childbirth. Obstet Gynecol 2001, 98:820-826.
42. Fraser W., Maunsell E., Hodnett E., et al. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after Cesarean section education and support program; Childbirth Alternatives Post-Cesarean Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 176:419-425.
43. Shorten A., Shorten B., Keogh J., et al. Making choices for childbirth: A randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after Cesarean. Birth 2005, 32:252-261.
44. Montgomery A.A., Emmett C.L., Fahey T., et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous Caesarian section: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007, 334:1305.
45. Frost J., Shaw A., Montgomery A., et al. Women's views on the use of decision aids for decision making about the method of delivery following a previous Caesarian section: Qualitative interview study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 116:896-905.
46. O'Donnell S., Cranney A., Jacobsen M.J., et al. Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2006, 12:174-181.
47. Sepucha K., Mulley A.G. A perspective on the patient's role in treatment decisions. Med Care Res Rev 2009, 66(suppl):53S-74S.
48. Practice Bulletin: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Number 2 October, 1998; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1999, 64:201-208. ACOG.
49. Roberts R.G., Deutchman M., King V.J., et al. Changing policies on vaginal birth after Cesarean: Impact on access. Birth 2007, 34:316-322.
50. Smith G.C., Pell J.P., Cameron A.D., et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous Cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 2002, 287:2684-2690.
51. Sepucha K.R., Fowler F.J., Mulley A.G. Policy support for patient-centered care: The need for measurable improvements in decision quality. Health Aff (Millwood) Suppl Web Exclusives, vole AR54-62 2004.