Birth choices for women in a 'Positive Birth after Caesarean' clinic: Randomised trial of alternative shared decision support strategies.
birth choice
decision aid
informed decision-making
trial of labour
vaginal birth after caesarean
Journal
The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology
ISSN: 1479-828X
Titre abrégé: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 0001027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
27
07
2018
accepted:
02
01
2019
pubmed:
19
2
2019
medline:
5
8
2020
entrez:
19
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Systematic approaches to information giving and decision support for women with previous caesarean sections are needed. To evaluate decision support within a 'real-world' shared decision-making model. A pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised trial in the Positive Birth After Caesarean Clinic. Women with one previous caesarean and singleton pregnancy <25 weeks were randomly allocated to standard Positive Birth After Caesarean care, or standard Positive Birth After Caesarean care plus a decision aid booklet. Main outcome measure was mode of birth, with secondary measures of knowledge, decisional conflict, birth choice, adherence to birth choice, perception of decision support, and satisfaction. Of 297 participants, rate of attempted vaginal birth after caesarean increased and was similar for both groups (61% vs 57%, P = 0.5). Knowledge scores increased more for women in the additional decision aid group (2.0 vs 1.6 points, P = 0.2). Decisional conflict score reduction was similar between groups (P = 0.5). Women initially unsure of their birth preference who received the additional decision aid had greater reduction in decisional conflict score (P = 0.04) and were more likely to plan vaginal birth after caesarean (49% vs 33%, P = 0.2). Adherence to birth choice and birth satisfaction was similar between groups. Women in the additional decision aid group rated their decision support tool higher (P < 0.01). In a 'real world' shared decision-making model, an additional decision aid conferred some benefits in factors associated with preparation for shared decision-making. Decision aids may provide particular benefit for women who are initially unsure and need assistance in the deliberation phase.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Systematic approaches to information giving and decision support for women with previous caesarean sections are needed.
AIM
To evaluate decision support within a 'real-world' shared decision-making model.
METHODS
A pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised trial in the Positive Birth After Caesarean Clinic. Women with one previous caesarean and singleton pregnancy <25 weeks were randomly allocated to standard Positive Birth After Caesarean care, or standard Positive Birth After Caesarean care plus a decision aid booklet. Main outcome measure was mode of birth, with secondary measures of knowledge, decisional conflict, birth choice, adherence to birth choice, perception of decision support, and satisfaction.
RESULTS
Of 297 participants, rate of attempted vaginal birth after caesarean increased and was similar for both groups (61% vs 57%, P = 0.5). Knowledge scores increased more for women in the additional decision aid group (2.0 vs 1.6 points, P = 0.2). Decisional conflict score reduction was similar between groups (P = 0.5). Women initially unsure of their birth preference who received the additional decision aid had greater reduction in decisional conflict score (P = 0.04) and were more likely to plan vaginal birth after caesarean (49% vs 33%, P = 0.2). Adherence to birth choice and birth satisfaction was similar between groups. Women in the additional decision aid group rated their decision support tool higher (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
In a 'real world' shared decision-making model, an additional decision aid conferred some benefits in factors associated with preparation for shared decision-making. Decision aids may provide particular benefit for women who are initially unsure and need assistance in the deliberation phase.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
684-692Subventions
Organisme : A+ Trust, Auckland DHB
ID : 4946 PG-1104-003
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Références
Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E et al. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12: CD004224.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4: CD001431.
Dugas M, Shorten A, Dube E et al. Decision aid tools to support women's decision making in pregnancy and birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74(12): 1968-1978.
Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA et al. Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 7: CD010041.
Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J et al. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after caesarean. Birth 2005; 32(4): 252-261.
Eden KB, Perrin NA, Vesco KK, Guise VM. A randomized comparative trial of two decision tools for pregnant women with prior caesareans. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2014; 43: 568-579.
Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007; 334: 1305-1309.
Lundgren I, Begley C, Gross MM, Bondas T. ‘Groping through the fog': a meta-synthesis of women's experiences on VBAC (Vaginal birth after Caesarean section). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 85.
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE et al. Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Decis Making 2010; 30(6): 701-711.
Shorten A, Shorten B. Timing the provision of a pregnancy decision-aid: temporal patterns of preference for mode of birth during pregnancy. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 97: 108-113.
Elwyn G, Rix A, Holt T, Jones D. Why do clinicians not refer patients to online decision support tools? Interviews with front line clinics in the NHS. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e001530.
National Women's Annual Clinical Report 2015. Auckland: National Women's Health, Auckland District Health Board, 2015; 203. [Accessed December 2016.] Available from URL: http://nationalwomenshealth.adhb.govt.nz/health-professionals/annual-clinical-report/yearly-annual-clinical-reports
Report on Maternity 2014. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2015. [Accessed April 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/report-maternity-2014
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous caesarean delivery: ACOG practice bulletin number 115. Obstet Gynecol 2010 (Reaffirmed 2015); 116: 450-463.
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: 307-313.
Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Bennett C et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS ONE 2009; 4(3): e4705.
Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 58-64.
O'Connor AM. User Manual - Decisional Conflict Scale. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1993 [Accessed 9 December 2016.] Available from URL: www.ohri.ca/decisionaid [updated 2010].
National Women's Annual Clinical Report 2010. Auckland: National Women's Health, Auckland District Health Board, 2010; 267. [Accessed 9th December 2016.] Available from URL: http://nationalwomenshealth.adhb.govt.nz/health-professionals/annual-clinical-report/yearly-annual-clinical-reports
Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GHA, 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: 171-176.
Ethnicity Data Protocols for the Health and Disability Sector 2016. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2016. [Accessed April 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/leadership-ministry/expert-groups/health-information-standards-organisation
Atkinson J, Salmond C, Crampton P. NZDep2013 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, 2016. [Accessed April 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago069936.pdf
Salmond C, Crampton P, Atkinson J. NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, 2007. [Accessed April 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago020337.pdf
Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P et al. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 2013; 382(9898): 1121-1129.
Sabol B, Denman MA, Guise J-M. Vaginal birth after caesarean: an effective method to reduce caesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 58(2): 309-319.
Munro S, Janssen P, Corbett K et al. Seeking control in the midst of uncertainty: Women's experiences of choosing mode of birth after caesarean. Women Birth 2017; 30: 129-136.
Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Edwards A et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ 2017; 357: j1744. Erratum in BMJ 2017; 357: j2005
Shorten A, Shorten B. The importance of mode of birth after previous caesarean: success, satisfaction, and postnatal health. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012; 57: 126-132.
Sheehan J, Sherman KA. Computerised decision aids: a systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 88: 69-86.