Involving women in personalised decision-making on mode of delivery after caesarean section: The development and pilot testing of a patient decision aid

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 121, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 202-209

  Schoorel, E N C ^a   Vankan, E ^b   Scheepers, H C J ^a   Augustijn, B C C ^a   Dirksen, C D ^c   De Koning, M ^a   Van Kuijk, S M J ^c   Kwee, A ^d   Melman, S ^a   Nijhuis, J G ^a   Aardenburg, R ^b   De Boer, K ^e   Hasaart, T H M ^f   Mol, B W J ^g   Nieuwenhuijze, M ^h   Van Pampus, M G ⁱ   Van Roosmalen, J ^j   Roumen, F J M E ^b   De Vries, R ^h   Wouters, M G A J ^k   Van Der Weijden, T ^c   Hermens, R P M G ^l   more..

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Sittard Geleen Heerlen   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^e RIJNSTATE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^f CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^g ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^h ZUYD UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

ⁱ Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis ^*  (Netherlands)

^j LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^k VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^l RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Patient decision aid; prediction model; shared decision making; vaginal birth after caesarean

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MIDWIFERY EDUCATION; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PILOT STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TEACHING HOSPITAL;

EID: 84891363673     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12516     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Guideline: Pregnancy and Childbirth after previous caesarean section, 2010.
2. RCOG. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline, 2007; No. 45.
3. SOGC. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 89: 319-31.
4. ACOG. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG practice bulletin, 2010(no. 115).
5. National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence: Caesarean Section. NICE clinical guideline 132, 2011 (last modified 2012).
6. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2010; 191: 1-397.
7. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF,. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 689-95.
8. Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J,. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean. Birth 2005; 32: 252-61.
9. Shorten A, Shorten B,. The importance of mode of birth after previous cesarean: success, satisfaction, and postnatal health. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012; 57: 126-32.
10. Fawsitt CG, Bourke J, Greene RA, Everard CM, Murphy A, Lutomski JE,. At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery. PLoS One 2013; 8: e58577.
11. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 10: CD001431.
12. Grobman WA,. Rates and prediction of successful vaginal birth after cesarean. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34: 244-8.
13. Eden KB, McDonagh M, Denman MA, Marshall N, Emeis C, Fu R, et al. New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted? Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 967-81.
14. Shorten A, Chamberlain M, Shorten B, Kariminia A,. Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 52: 307-13.
15. Emmett CL, Murphy DJ, Patel RR, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts IW, 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: 161-72.
16. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Dolan Mullen P, Ng C, van der Weijden TA,. Systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Infor Dec Mak 2013; 13(Suppl 2):S2, doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2.
17. Melman S, Schoorel EN, Dirksen C, Kwee A, Smits L, de Boer F, et al. SIMPLE: implementation of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines on caesarean sections in the Netherlands. Protocol for a controlled before and after study. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 3.
18. Steyerberg E,. Clinical Prediction Models. New York, NY: Springer, 2009.
19. Harrell F,. Regression Modeling Strategies. New York, NY: Springer, 2001.
20. Schoorel ENC, van Kuijk SMJ, Melman S, Nijhuis JG, Smits LJM, Aardenburg R, et al. Vaginal birth after a caesarean section: the development of a Western European population based prediction model for deliveries at term. BJOG 2014; 121: 194-201.
21. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333: 417.
22. Lundgren-Laine H, Salantera S,. Think-aloud technique and protocol analysis in clinical decision-making research. Qual Health Res 2010; 20: 565-75.
23. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW,. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 132: 171-6.
24. Fitzpatrick KE, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M,. Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001184.
25. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1226-32.
26. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 209-14.
27. Kaimal AJ, Kuppermann M,. Understanding risk, patient and provider preferences, and obstetrical decision making: approach to delivery after cesarean. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34: 331-6.
28. Emmett CL, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ,. Preferences for mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: what do women want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes? Health Expect 2011; 14: 397-404.
29. Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One 2009; 4: e4705.
30. Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN, Kok M, Mol BW, Morris JM, et al. Decision aids to improve informed decision-making in pregnancy care: a systematic review. BJOG 2013; 120: 257-66.
31. Knol F, Boelhouwer J, Veldheer V,. Neighbourhood Status Development in the Netherlands 1998-2010. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, 2012.