Literature DB >> 12618154

Birth outcomes: utility values that postnatal women, midwives and medical staff express.

C T Pham1, C A Crowther.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if and to what extent postnatal women's preferences for birth outcomes differ from those of midwives and medical staff, and whether any variations in utility scores are associated with demographic variables.
DESIGN: Cross sectional cohort study.
SETTING: The Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide. POPULATION: A total of 180 participants which included 90 postnatal women, 59 midwives and 31 medical staff.
METHODS: Preferences (utility scores) were measured by direct interviews using utility techniques: the visual analogue scale and the standard gamble. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Preferences (utility scores) for eight birth outcomes.
RESULTS: Women assigned higher utility scores for the five birth outcomes of jaundice requiring phototherapy, admission to neonatal nursery, shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and transient neurological symptoms than midwives, which suggested that women regarded these outcomes as less severe (P < 0.01). Utility scores for the women and medical staff were similar. The majority of postnatal women, midwives and medical staff preferred permanent neurological sequelae to perinatal death. Eighty-nine percent of postnatal women preferred permanent neurological sequelae to perinatal death compared with 71% of midwives (P < 0.01), and 68% of medical staff (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Utility values for important birth outcomes varied between women who had recently given birth and health professionals. Clinical practice should recognise and respect the preferences of women, with appropriate balance between their preferences, those of health professionals and the known benefits of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12618154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  11 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Utility scores for vesicoureteral reflux and anti-reflux surgery.

Authors:  Caleb P Nelson; Jonathan C Routh; Tanya Logvinenko; Ilina Rosoklija; Paul J Kokorowski; Lisa A Prosser; Mark A Schuster
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 1.830

3.  Measuring health utility in varying pregnancy contexts among a diverse cohort of pregnant women.

Authors:  Lisbet S Lundsberg; Xiao Xu; Eleanor B Schwarz; Aileen M Gariepy
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Universal cervical length screening and treatment with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth: a decision and economic analysis.

Authors:  Alison G Cahill; Anthony O Odibo; Aaron B Caughey; David M Stamilio; Sonia S Hassan; George A Macones; Roberto Romero
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Using perinatal morbidity scoring tools as a primary study outcome.

Authors:  Jennifer A Hutcheon; Lisa M Bodnar; Robert W Platt
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Planned vaginal and planned cesarean delivery outcomes in pregnancies complicated with pregestational type 1 diabetes - A three-year academic tertiary hospital cohort study.

Authors:  Heidi Kruit; Saara Mertsalmi; Leena Rahkonen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Rating the seriousness of maternal and child health outcomes linked with pregnancy weight gain.

Authors:  Lisa M Bodnar; Dmitry Khodyakov; Sara M Parisi; Katherine P Himes; Jessica G Burke; Jennifer A Hutcheon
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 3.103

Review 9.  Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Z Alfirevic; E Keeney; T Dowswell; N J Welton; N Medley; S Dias; L V Jones; D M Caldwell
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; a two-year cohort study.

Authors:  Katti Adler; Leena Rahkonen; Heidi Kruit
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.