Developing an Internet-Based Decision Aid for Women Choosing Between Vaginal Birth After Cesarean and Planned Repeat Cesarean

Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 390-400

  Shorten, Allison ^a   Fagerlin, Angela ^b,c,d   Illuzzi, Jessica ^a   Kennedy, Holly P ^a   Lakehomer, Hannah ^a   Pettker, Christian M ^e   Saran, Allison ^a   Witteman, Holly ^f   Whittemore, Robin ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine   (United States)

^d VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research   (United States)

^e YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Birth choices; Internet decision aid; Planned repeat cesarean; Shared decision making; Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERNET; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MIDWIFE; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SHARED DECISION MAKING; VAGINAL DELIVERY; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PREGNANCY; REPEAT CESAREAN SECTION; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MIDWIFERY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PREGNANCY; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84938740148     PISSN: 15269523     EISSN: 15422011     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12298     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191. (prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I). AHRQ Publication No. 10-E001. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
2. Cox KJ. Counseling women with a previous cesarean birth: Toward a shared decision-making partnership. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(3):237-245. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12177. Epub 2014 Apr 28.
3. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Births: Final Data for 2012. National vital statistics reports; vol 62 no 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf. Accessed July 2nd 2014.
4. Bernstein SN, Matalon-Grazi S, Rosenn BM. Trial of labor versus repeat cesarean: Are patients making an informed decision? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:204.e1-e6.
5. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights March 8-10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1279-1295.
6. 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(4):252-261.
7. Horey D, Kealy M, Davey M, Small R, Crowther CA. Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7): CD010041. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010041.pub2.
8. Shafir A, Rosenthal J. Shared decision-making: advancing patient-centered care through state and federal implementation. National Academy for State Health Policy, March 2012. http://www.nashp.org/sites/default/files/shared.decision.making.companion.document.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2014.
9. Kaimal AJ, Kupperman M. Understanding risk, patient and provider preferences and obstetrical decision-making: Approach to delivery after cesarean. Semin Perinatol 2010;34:331-336.
10. Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: A narrative analysis. Birth. 2014;41:178-184.
11. Korst LM, Kimberly D, Gregory KD, Fridman M, Phelan JP. Affecting women's access to trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38:193-216.
12. 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. Patent Educ Couns. 2004;52:307-313.
13. Elwyn G, Kreuwel E, Durand ME, Sivell S, Joseph-Williams N, Evans R, Edwards A. How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: A process map. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:260-265.
14. Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, et al. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: Evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. JAMA. 2011;18:318-321.
15. Wang J-Y, Bennett K, Probst J. Subdividing the digital divide: Differences in internet access and use among rural residents with medical limitations. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e25. doi:10.2196/jmir.1534.
16. Yen P-Y, Bakken S. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(3):413-422. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2010000020.
17. Henry SL, editor (2012) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Available: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php. Accessed October 1, 2013.
18. Hoffman AS, Volk RJ, Saarimaki A, Stirling C, Li LC, et al. Delivering patient decision aids on the internet: Definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S13.
19. Lagan BM, Sinclair M, George Kernohan W. Internet use in pregnancy informs women's decision-making: A web-based survey. Birth. 2010;37:106-115.
20. Bensley RJ, Hovis A, Horton KD, Loyo JJ, Bensley KM, et al. Accessibility and preferred use of online web applications among WIC participants with internet access. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46:S87-S92. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.007.
21. Ebert L, Bellchambers H Ferguson A, Browne J. Socially disadvantaged women's views of barriers to feeling safe to engage in decision-making in maternity care. Women and Birth. 2014;27:132-137.
22. Shorten A, Shorten B, West S. Preparing consumers for shared decisions: Analysing the effectiveness of a decision-aid for women making choices about birth after caesarean. In: Blakely E ed., Psychology of Decision-Making in Healthcare. Hauppauge NY, Nova Science Publishers; 2007, 73-104.
23. Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J. User-centered design. In: Bainbridge W, ed. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.
24. ISO DIS 9241-210:2010: Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction - Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems (formerly known as 13407). Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization; 2010.
25. Fox M. A Systematic review of the literature reporting on studies that examined the impact of interactive, computer-based patient education programs. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:6-13.
26. Duggan M, Smith A. Cell Internet Use. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013.
27. Coulter A Kryworuchko J, Mullen P, et al (2012). In Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H, eds. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaborations Background Document. Chapter A. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-A.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2014.
28. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen P, Ng C, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S2 doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
29. McCaffery K, Sheridan S, Nutbeam D, et al. Addressing Health Literacy. In: Volk R and Llewellyn-Thomas H. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaborations Background Document Chapter J. 2012. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-J.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2014.
30. Readability Formulas: http://www.readabilityformulas.com/fry-graph-readability-formula.php. Accessed July 12, 2014.
31. McLaughlin G. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12(8):639-646.
32. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:806-812.
33. Jaspers M, Steen T, Bos C, Geenen M. The think aloud method: A guide to user interface design. Int J Medical Inform. 2004;73:781-795. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003.
34. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB University Press. 2001;9(5):1-6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816.