Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Latent versus Active Labor Hospital Admission for Medically Low-Risk, Term Women

Birth

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 219-226

  Tilden, Ellen L ^a   Lee, Vanessa R ^b   Allen, Allison J ^b   Griffin, Emily E ^b   Caughey, Aaron B ^b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cesarean delivery; Latent labor; Low risk labor

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EPIDURAL ANESTHESIA; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LABOR ONSET; MATERNAL MORTALITY; PREGNANCY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TERM BIRTH; TRIAL OF LABOR; UNITED STATES;

ANESTHESIA, EPIDURAL; CESAREAN SECTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; LABOR ONSET; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MODELS, ECONOMIC; PREGNANCY; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TERM BIRTH; TRIAL OF LABOR; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84939263846     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/birt.12179     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Boyle A, Reddy UM. Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: The scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol 2012;36(5):308-314.
2. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(3):527-535.
3. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201(3):308. e1-8
4. Main EK, Moore D, Farrell B, et al. Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(6):1644-1651; discussion 1651-1642.
5. King TL. Preventing primary cesarean sections: Intrapartum care. Semin Perinatol 2012;36(5):357-364.
6. Spong C, Berghella V, Wenstrom K, Mercer B, Saade G. Preventing the first cesarean delivery. Summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;120(5):1181-1193.
7. Hemminki ES. R. The timing of hospital admission and progress of labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986;22:85-94.
8. McNiven PS, Williams JI, Hodnett E, et al. An early labor assessment program: A randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1998;25(1):5-10.
9. Holmes P, Oppenheimer LW, Wen SW. The relationship between cervical dilatation at initial presentation in labour and subsequent intervention. BJOG 2001;108(11):1120-1124.
10. Bailit JL, Dierker L, Blanchard MH, Mercer BM. Outcomes of women presenting in active versus latent phase of spontaneous labor. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(1):77-79.
11. Davey M, LMcLachlan HL, Forster D, Flood M. Influence of timing of admission in labour and management of labour on method of birth: Results from a randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery (COSMOS trial). Midwifery 2013;29(12):1297-1302.
12. Incerti M, Locatelli A, Ghidini A, et al. Variability in rate of cervical dilation in nulliparous women at term. Birth 2011;38(1):30-35.
13. Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management of labour for reducing cesarean section rates in low-risk women (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;Sept (9):1-48.
14. Hodnett E, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;July (7):1-118.
15. O'Driscoll K, Meagher D, Boylan P. Active Management of Labor: The Dublin Experience. 3rd ed. London: Mosby; 1993:92-93.
16. Socol ML. The influence of practice management on primary cesarean birth. Semin Perinatol 2012;36(5):399-402.
17. Neal JL, Lowe NK, Patrick TE, et al. What is the slowest-yet-normal cervical dilation rate among nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2010;39(4):361-369.
18. Greulich B, Tarrant B. The latent phase of labor: Diagnosis and management. J Midwifery Womens Health 2007;52(3):190-198.
19. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Aff 2008;27(3):759-769.
20. Solheim KN, Esakoff TF, Little SE, et al. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24(11):1341-1346.
21. Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D. Placenta accreta: Pathogenesis of a 20th century iatrogenic uterine disease. Placenta 2012;33(4):244-251.
22. Devane D, Lalor JG, Daly S, et al. Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;Nov(2):1-39.
23. Haws RA, Yakoob MY, Soomro T, et al. Reducing stillbirths: Screening and monitoring during pregnancy and labour. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009;9(Suppl 1):S5.
24. Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, et al. Risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(1):76-82.
25. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, et al. Maternal deaths in the 21st century: Causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(36):e1-e36.
26. Allen V, O'Colleen C, Baskett T. Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:549.
27. Gold KJ, Sen A, Xu X. Hospital costs associated with stillbirth delivery. Matern Child Health J 2013;17(10):1835-1841.
28. Naglie G, Krahn M, Naimark D, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997;17(2):136-141.
29. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, et al. Procedure-related miscarriages and down syndrome-affected births: Implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(4):511-516.
30. Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997;17(2):142-151.
31. Silver RM. Implications of the first cesarean: Perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Semin Perinatol 2012;36(5):315-323.
32. Friedman E. Primigravid labor: A geographicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955:567:45-58.
33. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187(4):824-828.
34. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(6):1281-1287.
35. Neal JL, Lowe NK, Ahijevych KL, et al. "Active labor" duration and dilation rates among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset: A systematic review. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010;55(4):308-318.
36. Neal JL, Lamp JM, Buck JS, et al. Outcomes of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset admitted to hospitals in preactive versus active labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2014;59(1):28-33.
37. Cheyne H, Terry R, Niven C, et al. 'Should I come in now?': A study of women's early labour experiences. Br J Midwifery 2007;15(10):604-609.
38. Scotland GS, McNamee P, Cheyne H, et al. Women's preferences for aspects of labor management: Results from a discrete choice experiment. Birth 2011;38(1):36-46.
39. Maimburg RD, Vaeth M, Durr J, et al. Randomised trial of structured antenatal training sessions to improve the birth process. BJOG 2010;117(8):921-928.
40. Lumluk T, Kovavisarach E. Effect of antenatal education for better self-correct dignosis of true labor: A randomized control study. J Med Assoc Thai 2011;94(7):772-774.
41. Institute of Medicine. An Update on Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2013.