Decision Making for Primary Cesarean Delivery: The Role of Patient and Provider Preferences

Seminars in Perinatology

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 384-389

  Kaimal, Anjali J ^a   Kuppermann, Miriam ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cesarean delivery; Patient provider communication; Shared decision making

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; LABOR; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PLACENTA PREVIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAFETY; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

CESAREAN SECTION; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PREGNANCY;

EID: 84866546201     PISSN: 01460005     EISSN: 1558075X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2012.04.024     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Menacker F., Hamilton B.E. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief 2010, 35:1-8.
2. Légaré 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.
3. Stewart B.M., Weston W., McWhinney I., et al. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method 1995, Sage Publications, London.
4. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:217-227. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins.
5. Viswanathan M., Visco A.G., Hartmann K., et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006, 133:1-138.
6. Wax J.R., Cartin A., Pinette M.G., et al. Patient choice cesarean: An evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004, 59:601-616.
7. Dursun P., Yanik F.B., Zeyneloglu H.B., et al. Why women request cesarean section without medical indication?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011, 24:1133-1137.
8. Wiklund I., Edman G., Andolf E. Cesarean section on maternal request: Reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007, 86:451-456.
9. Turner C.E., Young J.M., Solomon M.J., et al. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: The views of pregnant women and clinicians. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2008, 115:1494-1502.
10. Weaver J.J., Statham H., Richards M. Are there "unnecessary" Cesarean sections?. Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth 2007, 34:32-41.
11. Kingdon C., Neilson J., Singleton V., et al. Choice and birth method: Mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 116:886-895.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Emmett C., Shaw A., Montgomery A., et al. 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006, 113:1438-1445.
16. 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 403-405.
17. 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.
18. McClain C.S. Why women choose trial of labor or repeat cesarean section. J Fam Pract 1985, 21:210-216.
19. McClain C.S. Patient decision making: The case of delivery method after a previous cesarean section. Cult Med Psychiatry 1987, 11:495-508.
20. McClain C.S. The making of a medical tradition: Vaginal birth after cesarean. Soc Sci Med 1990, 31:203-210.
21. Barber E.L., Lundsberg L.S., Belanger K., et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118:29-38.
22. Berghella V., Blackwell S.C., Ramin S.M., et al. Use and misuse of the term "elective" in obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 117:372-376.
23. Macones G.A., Hankins G.D., Spong C.Y., et al. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: Update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:661-666.
24. Simon C.E., Grobman W.A. When has an induction failed?. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:705-709.
25. Rouse D.J., Owen J., Hauth J.C. Active-phase labor arrest: Oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 93:323-328.
26. Peipert J.F., Hogan J.W., Gifford D., et al. Strength of indication for cesarean delivery: Comparison of private physician versus resident service labor management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 181:435-439.
27. Luthy D.A., Malmgren J.A., Zingheim R.W. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191:1511-1515.
28. Luthy D.A., Malmgren J.A., Zingheim R.W., et al. Physician contribution to a cesarean delivery risk model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:1579-1585. discussion 1585-1587.
29. Peaceman A.M., Feinglass J., Manheim L.M. Risk-adjustment of cesarean delivery rates: A practical method for use in quality improvement. Am J Med Qual 2002, 17:113-117.
30. Kalish R.B., McCullough L., Gupta M., et al. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: A previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 103:1137-1141.
31. Shen O., Rabinowitz R., Geist R.R., et al. Effect of background case characteristics on decisions in the delivery room. Med Decis Making 2010, 30:518-522.
32. Li T., Rhoads G.G., Smulian J., et al. Physician cesarean delivery rates and risk-adjusted perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 101:1204-1212.
33. Epstein A.J., Nicholson S. The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: An application to cesarean sections. J Health Econ 2009, 28:1126-1140.
34. Han P.K., Klein W.M., Arora N.K. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: A conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making 2011, 31:828-838.
35. Abenhaim H.A., Benjamin A., Koby R.D., et al. Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians. Cmaj 2007, 177:352-356.
36. Althabe F., Belizán J.M., Villar J., et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 363:1934-1940.
37. Khunpradit S., Tavender E., Lumbiganon P., et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 6. CD005528.