Strength of preference for vaginal birth as a predictor of delivery mode among women who attempt a vaginal delivery

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 210, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 440.e1-440.e6

  Wu, Erica ^a   Kaimal, Anjali J ^b   Houston, Kathryn ^c   Yee, Lynn M ^d   Nakagawa, Sanae ^c   Kuppermann, Miriam ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

delivery mode; patient preferences

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

DELIVERY MODE; PATIENT PREFERENCES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN;

EID: 85058205486     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.11.021     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. B.E. Hamilton, J.A. Martin, and S.J. Ventura Births: preliminary data for 2011 Natl Vital Stat Rep 61 2012 1 20
2. M.L. Socol The influence of practice management on primary cesarean birth Semin Perinatol 36 2012 399 402
3. M.F. MacDorman, F. Menacker, and E. Declercq Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes Clin Perinatol 35 2008 293 307 v
4. C.L. Emmett, A.A. Montgomery, and D.J. Murphy Preferences for mode of delivery after previous cesarean section: what do women want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes? Health Expect 14 2010 397 404
5. A.J. Kaimal, and M. Kuppermann Decision making for primary cesarean delivery: the role of patient and provider preferences Semin Perinatol 36 2012 384 389
6. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 116 2010 450 463
7. E.L. Barber, L.S. Lundsberg, K. Belanger, C.M. Pettker, E.F. Funai, and J.L. Illuzzi Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate Obstet Gynecol 118 2011 29 38
8. G.A. Macones, G.D. Hankins, C.Y. Spong, J. Hauth, and T. Moore 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 112 2008 661 666
9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles Obstet Gynecol 114 2009 192 202
10. S.P. Chauhan, C.K. Klauser, T.C. Woodring, M. Sanderson, E.F. Magann, and J.C. Morrison Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability Am J Obstet Gynecol 199 2008 623.e1 623.e5
11. S.L. Clark, M.P. Nageotte, and T.J. Garite et al. Intrapartum management of category II fetal heart rate tracings: towards standardization of care Am J Obstet Gynecol 209 2013 89 97
12. A.J. Kaimal, and M. Kuppermann Understanding risk, patient and provider preferences, and obstetrical decision making: approach to delivery after cesarean Semin Perinatol 34 2010 331 336
13. R.B. Kalish, L. McCullough, M. Gupta, H.T. Thaler, and F.A. Chervenak Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity Obstet Gynecol 103 2004 1137 1141
14. D. Fuglenes, E. Aas, G. Botten, P. Oian, and I.S. Kristiansen Maternal preference for cesarean delivery: do women get what they want? Obstet Gynecol 120 2012 252 260
15. I. Hildingsson How much influence do women in Sweden have on cesarean section? A follow-up study of women's preferences in early pregnancy Midwifery 24 2008 46 54
16. J.M. Wu, R.G. Fulton, C.L. Amundsen, S.K. Knight, and M. Kuppermann Patient preferences for different severities of and treatments for overactive bladder Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17 2012 184 189
17. G.W. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal J Health Econ 5 1986 1 30
18. P. Allison Missing data 2002 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA
19. D. Rubin Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys 1987 Wiley New York, NY
20. X.L. Meng, and D.B. Rubin Performing likelihood ratio tests with multiply-imputed data sets Biometrika 79 1992 103 111
21. I. Hildingsson, I. Radestad, C. Rubertsson, and U. Waldenstrom Few women wish to be delivered by cesarean section BJOG 109 2002 618 623
22. A. Karlstrom, A. Nystedt, M. Johansson, and I. Hildingsson Behind the myth-few women prefer cesarean section in the absence of medical or obstetrical factors Midwifery 27 2010 620 627
23. M.A. Moffat, J.S. Bell, and M.A. Porter et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a cesarean section: a qualitative study BJOG 114 2007 86 93
24. C.S. McClain The making of a medical tradition: vaginal birth after cesarean Soc Sci Med 31 1990 203 210
25. W. Nelson, V.F. Reyna, A. Fagerlin, I. Lipkus, and E. Peters Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice Ann Behav Med 35 2008 261 274
26. A. Arcia US nulliparas' perceptions of roles and of the birth experience as predictors of their delivery preferences Midwifery 29 2013 885 894
27. K.B. Eden, J.N. Hashima, P. Osterweil, P. Nygren, and J.M. Guise Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: a review of the evidence Birth 31 2004 49 60
28. L. Yee, and M. Simon The role of the social network in contraceptive decision-making among young, African American and Latina women J Adolesc Health 47 2010 374 380
29. M.W. Pang, T.N. Leung, T.K. Lau, and T.K. Hang Chung Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preference for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study Birth 35 2008 121 128
30. A.D. Lyerly, L.M. Mitchell, and E.M. Armstrong et al. Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy Obstet Gynecol 109 2007 979 984
31. M.O. Little, A.D. Lyerly, and L.M. Mitchell et al. Mode of delivery: toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences Obstet Gynecol 112 2008 913 918
32. P. Dursun, F.B. Yanik, H.B. Zeyneloglu, E. Baser, E. Kuscu, and A. Ayhan Why women request cesarean section without medical indication? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 24 2011 1133 1137