The absolute power of relative risk in debates on repeat cesareans and home birth in the United States

Journal of Clinical Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 215-224

  Declercq, Eugene ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HOME DELIVERY; HUMAN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANT WOMAN; RISK; UNITED STATES;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HOME CHILDBIRTH; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANT WOMEN; RISK; UNITED STATES; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84887568511     PISSN: 10467890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. J. Martin et al., "Births: Final Data 2011", National Vital Statistics Reports 62, no. 1(2013), National Center for Health Statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62-01.pdf, accessed 29 July 2013.
2. B. Hamilton, J. Martin, and S. Ventura, "Births: Preliminary Data for 2011", National Vital Statistics Reports 61, no. 5(2012), National Center for Health Statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61 Znvsr61-05.pdf, accessed 5 March 2013.
3. U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, "Vital Stats", http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/VitalStats. htm, accessed 19 August 2013.
4. See note 1 above; M. F. MacDorman, E. R. Declercq, and T. J. Mathews, "United States Home Births Increase 20 Percent from 2004 to 2008", Birth 38, no. 3(2011):185-90.
5. R. Harrison, D. Smith, P. Greene, and P. Kratt, "Relationship between relative risk of developing breast cancer and absolute risk in a population of rural, older African American women", Breast Journal 6, no. 5(1999):364-8.
6. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD health data 2010: statistics and indicators for 34 countries (Paris: OECD, 2010).
7. R. Gee and M. Corry, "Patient Engagement and Shared Decision Making in Maternity Care", Obstetrics & Gynecology 120, no. 5(2012):995-7.
8. A. J. Kaimal and M. Kuppermann, "Understanding Risk, Patient and Provider Preferences, and Obstetrical Decision Making: Approach to Delivery After Cesarean", Seminars in Perinatology 34(2010):331-6.
9. R. M. Silver et al., "Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries", Obstetrics & Gynecology 107, no. 6(2006):1226-32.
10. E. R. Declercq, D. Cunningham, C. Johnson, and C. Sakala, "Mothers' Reports of Postpartum Pain Associated with Vaginal and Cesarean Deliveries: Results of a National Survey", Birth 35, no. 1(2008):16-24;
11. G. C. Smith, J. P. Pell, A. D. Cameron, and R. Dobbie, "Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies", Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 20(2002):2684-90.
12. D. Fuglenes, P. Øian, and I. Sønbø Kristiansen, "Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?" American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 200, no. 1(2009):48.el-8;
13. C. Sakala, Y. T. Yang, and M. P. Corry, Maternity Care and Liability: Pressing Problems, Substantive Solutions (New York: Childbirth Connection, 2013), http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/'2013102/ Maternity-Care-and-Liability.pdf, accessed 19 August 2013.
14. E. R. Declercq, C. Sakala, M. P. Corry, and S. Applebaum, Listening to Mothers II: Report of the second national U. S. survey of women's childbearing experiences (New York: Childbirth Connection, 2006).
15. E. B. Cragin, "Conservatism in obstetrics", New York Medical Journal 104, no. 1(1916):1-3.
16. B. L. Flamm et al., "Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: results of a 5-year multicenter collaborative study", Obstetrics & Gynecology 76, no. 5, part 1(1990):750-4;
17. M. G. Rosen and J. C. Dickinson, "Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of indicators for success", Obstetrics & Gynecology 76, no. 5, part 1(1990):865-9;
18. E. L. Mozurkewich and E. K. Hutton, "Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 183, no. 5(2000):1187-97.
19. S. M. Taffel, "Cesarean section in America: dramatic trends, 1970 to 1987", Statistical Bulletin-Metropolitan Insurance Companies 70, no. 4(1989):2-11.
20. "NIH consensus development statement on cesarean childbirth: The Cesarean Birth Task Force", Obstetrics & Gynecology 57, no. 4 (April 1981):537-45.
21. "ACOG practice bulletin. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. No. 2, October 1998. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists", International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 64, no. 2 (February 1999):201-8.
22. A. D. Lyerly and M. O. Little, "Toward an Ethically Responsible Approach to Vaginal Birth After Cesarean", Seminars in Perinatology 34(2010):8.
23. S. Zinberg, "Vaginal delivery after previous cesarean delivery: a continuing controversy", Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 44, no. 3(2001):561-70.
24. A. Chung et al., "Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous cesarean", Obstetrics & Gynecology 97, no. 6(2001):932-41.
25. M. Abitbol et al., "Vaginal birth after cesarean section: the patient's point of view", American Family Physician 47, no. 1(1993):129-34.
26. B. P. Sachs, C. Kobelin, M. A. Castro, and F. Frigoletto, "The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate", New England Journal of Medicine 340, no. 1(1999):54-7.
27. M. J. McMahon, E. R. Luther, W. A. Bowes, Jr., and A. F. Olshan, "Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section", New England Journal of Medicine 335, no. 10(1996):689-95.
28. R. H. Paul, "Toward fewer cesarean sections-the role of a trial of labor", New England Journal of Medicine 335, no. 10(1996):735-6.
29. "Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery", International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 66, no. 2 (August 1999):197-204.
30. M. Lydon-Rochelle, T. R. Easterling, and D. P. Martin, "Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery", New England Journal of Medicine 345, no. 1(2001):3-8.
31. M. F. Greene, "Vaginal delivery after cesarean section-is the risk acceptable?" New England Journal of Medicine 345, no. 1(2001):54-5.
32. J. M. Guise et al., "Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section", BMJ 329, no. 7456 (3 July 2004):19-25.
33. M. B. Landon et al., "Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery", New England Journal of Medicine 351, no. 25(2004):2581-9.
34. L. R. Dubay, R. Kaestner, and T. Waidmann, "The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates", Journal of Health Economics 18, no. 4(1999):491-522;
35. Y. Yang et al., "Relationship Between Malpractice Litigation Pressure and Rates of Cesarean Section and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section", Medical Care 47, no. 2(2009):234-42;
36. "NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights", NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements 2, no. 3 (8-10 March 2010):36, http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/ vbac/vbac-statement.pdf accessed 17 September 2013.
37. "ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean", Obstetrics & Gynecology 116, no. 2, part 1 (August 2010):450-63.
38. C. A. Crowther et al., "Planned Vaginal Birth or Elective Repeat Caesarean: Patient Preference Restricted Cohort with Nested Randomised Trial", PLoS Medicine 9, no. 3(2012), http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/ info%3Adoi%2Fl0.1371 %2Fjournal.pmed. 1001192, accessed 19 August 2013.
39. A. Kotsaka, "Quantifying VBAC Risk: Muddying the Waters", Birth 39, no. 4(2012):333-7.
40. F. Chervanak et al., "Planned home birth: the professional responsibility response", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 208, no. 1(2013):1-8.
41. E. R. Declercq, "The Politics of Home Birth in the United States", Birth 39, no. 4(2012):281-5.
42. J. R. Wax et al., "Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 203, no. 3 (September 2010):243.el-8, http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2810%2900671-X/fulltext, accessed 19 August 2013.
43. C. Michal et al, "Planned Home vs Hospital Birth: A Meta-Analysis Gone Wrong", MedScape 1 April 2011, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ 739987, accessed 19 August 2013;
44. E. C. Hayden, "Home-birth study investigated", Nature 18 March 2011, http://www.nature.com/newsl2011lll0318lfulllnews.2011.162.html, accessed 19 August 2013.
45. A. De Jonge et al., "Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of low-risk planned home and hospital births", BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 116, no. 9(2009):1177-84.
46. Committee on Obstetric Practice and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, "Planned Home Birth; Committee Opinion 476", Obstetretics & Gynecology 117, no. 5(2011):425-8.
47. J. Ecker and H. Minkoff, "Home Birth: What Are Physicians' Ethical Obligations When Patient Choices May Carry Increased Risk?" editorial, Obstetrics & Gynecology 117(2011):1179-82.
48. R. Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007).
49. W. B. Harer, Jr., "Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: current status", Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 20(2002):2627-30.
50. A. A. Montgomery, C. L. Emmett, and T. Fahey, "Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous Caesarian section: Randomised controlled trial", BMJ 334 (21 June 2007):1305;
51. J. A. Frost, A. Shaw, A. Montgomery, and D. J. Murphy, "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", BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 116, no. 7 (June 2009):896-905.