IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0222499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of the use of a decision aid with individual risk estimation on the mode of delivery after a caesarean section: A prospective cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Emy Vankan
  • Ellen Schoorel
  • Sander van Kuijk
  • Jan Nijhuis
  • Rosella Hermens
  • Hubertina Scheepers
  • on behalf of the SIMPLE study group

Abstract

Objective: After one previous caesarean section (CS), pregnant women can deliver by elective repeat CS or have a trial of labor which can end in a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) or an unplanned CS. Despite guidelines describing women’s rights to make an informed choice, trial of labor and VBAC rates vary greatly worldwide. Many women are inadequately informed due to caregivers’ fear of an increase in CS rates in a high VBAC rate setting. We compared counseling with a decision aid (DA) including a prediction model on VBAC to care as usual. We hypothesize that counselling with the DA does not decrease VBAC rates. In addition, we aimed to study the effects on unplanned CS rate, patient involvement in decision-making and elective repeat CS rates. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study. From 2012 to 2014, 483 women in six hospitals, where the DA was used (intervention group), were compared with 441 women in six matched hospitals (control group). Women with one previous CS, pregnant of a singleton in cephalic presentation, delivering after 37 weeks 0 days were eligible for inclusion. Results: There was no significant difference in VBAC rates between the intervention (45%) and control group (46%) (adjusted odds ratio 0,92 (95% Confidence interval 0.69–1.23)). In the intervention group more women (42%) chose an elective repeat CS compared to the control group (31%) (adjusted odds ratio 1.6 (95% Confidence interval 1.18–2.17)). Of women choosing trial of labor, in the intervention group 77% delivered vaginally compared to 67% in the control group, resulting in an unplanned CS adjusted odds ratio of 0,57 (0.40–0.82) in the intervention group. In the intervention group, more women reported to be involved in decision-making (98% vs. 68%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Emy Vankan & Ellen Schoorel & Sander van Kuijk & Jan Nijhuis & Rosella Hermens & Hubertina Scheepers & on behalf of the SIMPLE study group, 2019. "The effect of the use of a decision aid with individual risk estimation on the mode of delivery after a caesarean section: A prospective cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222499
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222499
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222499&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0222499?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.