Lynn M Yee1, Anjali J Kaimal2, Kathryn A Houston3, Erica Wu4, Mari-Paule Thiet3, Sanae Nakagawa3, Aaron B Caughey5, Atoosa Firouzian3, Miriam Kuppermann6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: kuppermannm@obgyn.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess women's preferences for vaginal vs cesarean delivery in 4 contexts: prior cesarean delivery, twins, breech presentation, and absent indication for cesarean. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of pregnant women at 24-40 weeks' gestation. After assessing stated preferences for vaginal or cesarean delivery, we used the standard gamble metric to measure the strength of these preferences and the time tradeoff metric to determine how women value the potential processes and outcomes associated with these 2 delivery approaches. RESULTS: Among the 240 participants, 90.8% had a stated preference for vaginal delivery. Across the 4 contexts, these women indicated that, on average, they would accept a 59-75% chance of an attempted vaginal birth ending in a cesarean delivery before choosing a planned cesarean delivery, indicating strong preferences for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery. Variations in preferences for labor processes emerged. Although uncomplicated labor ending in vaginal birth was assigned mean utilities of 0.993 or higher (on a 0-1 scale, with higher scores indicating more preferred outcomes), the need for oxytocin, antibiotics, or operative vaginal delivery resulted in lower mean scores, comparable with those assigned to uncomplicated cesarean delivery. Substantially lower scores (ranging from 0.432 to 0.598) were obtained for scenarios ending in severe maternal or neonatal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Although most women expressed strong preferences for vaginal delivery, their preferences regarding interventions frequently used to achieve that goal varied. These data underscore the importance of educating patients about the process of labor and delivery to facilitate incorporation of informed patient preferences in shared decision making regarding delivery approach.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess women's preferences for vaginal vs cesarean delivery in 4 contexts: prior cesarean delivery, twins, breech presentation, and absent indication for cesarean. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of pregnant women at 24-40 weeks' gestation. After assessing stated preferences for vaginal or cesarean delivery, we used the standard gamble metric to measure the strength of these preferences and the time tradeoff metric to determine how women value the potential processes and outcomes associated with these 2 delivery approaches. RESULTS: Among the 240 participants, 90.8% had a stated preference for vaginal delivery. Across the 4 contexts, these women indicated that, on average, they would accept a 59-75% chance of an attempted vaginal birth ending in a cesarean delivery before choosing a planned cesarean delivery, indicating strong preferences for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery. Variations in preferences for labor processes emerged. Although uncomplicated labor ending in vaginal birth was assigned mean utilities of 0.993 or higher (on a 0-1 scale, with higher scores indicating more preferred outcomes), the need for oxytocin, antibiotics, or operative vaginal delivery resulted in lower mean scores, comparable with those assigned to uncomplicated cesarean delivery. Substantially lower scores (ranging from 0.432 to 0.598) were obtained for scenarios ending in severe maternal or neonatal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Although most women expressed strong preferences for vaginal delivery, their preferences regarding interventions frequently used to achieve that goal varied. These data underscore the importance of educating patients about the process of labor and delivery to facilitate incorporation of informed patient preferences in shared decision making regarding delivery approach.
Authors: Henry C Lee; Jeffrey B Gould; W John Boscardin; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Yair J Blumenfeld Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Rebekah G Fulton; Cindy L Amundsen; Sharon K Knight; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: France Légaré; Annette C O'Connor; Ian Graham; Danielle Saucier; Luc Côté; Michel Cauchon; Line Paré Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Margaret Olivia Little; Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Lisa M Mitchell; Elizabeth M Armstrong; Lisa H Harris; Rebecca Kukla; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Catherine Y Spong; Vincenzo Berghella; Katharine D Wenstrom; Brian M Mercer; George R Saade Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Nancy H Liu; Agustina Mazzoni; Nina Zamberlin; Mercedes Colomar; Olivia H Chang; Lila Arnaud; Fernando Althabe; José M Belizán Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Anjali J Kaimal; William A Grobman; Allison S Bryant; Laura Norrell; Yamilee Bermingham; Anna Altshuler; Mari-Paule Thiet; Juan Gonzalez; Peter Bacchetti; Michelle Moghadassi; Miriam Kuppermann Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Sarah Rae Easter; Caroline E Rouse; Valeria Duarte; Jenna S Hynes; Michael N Singh; Michael J Landzberg; Anne Marie Valente; Katherine E Economy Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: William A Grobman; Madeline M Rice; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Elizabeth A Thom; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Annette Perez-Delboy; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Kim A Boggess; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kartik K Venkatesh; Suzanne Brodney; Michael J Barry; Jamie Jackson; Kiira M Lyons; Asha N Talati; Thomas S Ivester; Maria C Munoz; John M Thorp; Wanda K Nicholson Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 3.007