OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of two computer based decision aids on decisional conflict and mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous caesarean section. DESIGN: Randomised trial, conducted from May 2004 to August 2006. SETTING:Four maternity units in south west England, and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 742 pregnant women with one previous lower segment caesarean section and delivery expected at >or=37 weeks. Non-English speakers were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care: standard care given by obstetric and midwifery staff. Information programme: women navigated through descriptions and probabilities of clinical outcomes for mother and baby associated with planned vaginal birth, elective caesarean section, and emergency caesarean section. Decision analysis: mode of delivery was recommended based on utility assessments performed by the woman combined with probabilities of clinical outcomes within a concealed decision tree. Both interventions were delivered via a laptop computer after brief instructions from a researcher. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total score on decisional conflict scale, and mode of delivery. RESULTS: Women in the information programme (adjusted difference -6.2, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -3.7) and the decision analysis (-4.0, -6.5 to -1.5) groups had reduced decisional conflict compared with women in the usual care group. The rate of vaginal birth was higher for women in the decision analysis group compared with the usual care group (37% v 30%, adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 0.94 to 2.14), but the rates were similar in the information programme and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids can help women who have had a previous caesarean section to decide on mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The decision analysis approach might substantially affect national rates of caesarean section. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84367722.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of two computer based decision aids on decisional conflict and mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous caesarean section. DESIGN: Randomised trial, conducted from May 2004 to August 2006. SETTING: Four maternity units in south west England, and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 742 pregnant women with one previous lower segment caesarean section and delivery expected at >or=37 weeks. Non-English speakers were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care: standard care given by obstetric and midwifery staff. Information programme: women navigated through descriptions and probabilities of clinical outcomes for mother and baby associated with planned vaginal birth, elective caesarean section, and emergency caesarean section. Decision analysis: mode of delivery was recommended based on utility assessments performed by the woman combined with probabilities of clinical outcomes within a concealed decision tree. Both interventions were delivered via a laptop computer after brief instructions from a researcher. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total score on decisional conflict scale, and mode of delivery. RESULTS:Women in the information programme (adjusted difference -6.2, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -3.7) and the decision analysis (-4.0, -6.5 to -1.5) groups had reduced decisional conflict compared with women in the usual care group. The rate of vaginal birth was higher for women in the decision analysis group compared with the usual care group (37% v 30%, adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 0.94 to 2.14), but the rates were similar in the information programme and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids can help women who have had a previous caesarean section to decide on mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The decision analysis approach might substantially affect national rates of caesarean section. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84367722.
Authors: José Villar; Eliette Valladares; Daniel Wojdyla; Nelly Zavaleta; Guillermo Carroli; Alejandro Velazco; Archana Shah; Liana Campodónico; Vicente Bataglia; Anibal Faundes; Ana Langer; Alberto Narváez; Allan Donner; Mariana Romero; Sofia Reynoso; Karla Simônia de Pádua; Daniel Giordano; Marius Kublickas; Arnaldo Acosta Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-06-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Tessa Madden; Jessica Holttum; Ragini Maddipati; Gina M Secura; Robert F Nease; Jeffrey F Peipert; Mary C Politi Journal: Contraception Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Miriam Kuppermann; Anjali J Kaimal; Cinthia Blat; Juan Gonzalez; Mari-Paule Thiet; Yamilee Bermingham; Anna L Altshuler; Allison S Bryant; Peter Bacchetti; William A Grobman Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annmarie L Vilkins; Michael Sahara; Sara R Till; Christina Ceci; Ryan Howard; Kendall C Griffith; Jennifer F Waljee; Courtney S Lim; Bethany D Skinner; Daniel J Clauw; Chad M Brummett; Sawsan As-Sanie Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 7.661