Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To improve care for women going through trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), we need to understand their birth experience better. We investigated the association between mode of delivery on birth experience in second birth among women with a first cesarean.
METHODS: A population-based cohort study based on the Swedish Pregnancy Register with 808 women with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC in 2014-2017. Outcomes were mean birth experience measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) score from 1-10 and having a negative birth experience defined as VAS score ≤5. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed with β-estimates and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Mean VAS score among women with an elective repeat cesarean (n = 251 (31%)), vaginal birth (n = 388 (48%)) or unplanned repeat cesarean (n = 169 (21%)) in second birth were 8.8 (standard deviation SD 1.4), 8.0 (SD 2.0) and 7.6 (SD 2.1), respectively. Compared to women having an elective repeat cesarean, women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had five-fold higher odds of negative birth experience (adjusted OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.5-16.5). Women having a first elective cesarean and a subsequent unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had the highest odds of negative birth experience (crude OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.5-35.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Most women with a first cesarean scored their second birth experience as positive irrespective of mode of delivery. However, the odds of a negative birth experience increased among women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery, especially when the first cesarean delivery was elective.

Introduction

Childbirth is an important life event in women´s life. Anticipating triumph and delight, most women accept the possible difficulties of labor as part of a process to achieve a positive outcome for them and their child [1]. One in 10 have a negative birth experience which can affect the everyday life of the woman and her family, impair bonding with the newborn, even prolong birth intervals and impair future fertility [2-5]. A positive childbirth experience is an important aspect of intrapartum care and is highlighted in the new World Health Organization (WHO) guideline [6].

Birth experience is multidimensional, affected by maternal age, fear of childbirth, support from the midwife and partner during labor, induction of labor, labor duration, pain, expectations of giving birth, involvement and participation during labor, and surgical procedures [5, 7–13]. Mode of delivery, often affected by the factors listed above, is naturally an important indicator for the birth experience. Among first time mothers, having a vaginal non-instrumental delivery is associated with the highest rated birth experience, whereas unplanned cesarean delivery (CD) is associated with worse birth experience [5, 7, 14, 15].

The rate of CD is rising globally. Having a previous CD, as a reason for another CD, further increases CD rates [16, 17]. Therefore, a trial of labor after one cesarean (TOLAC) is promoted in many countries to lower CD rates and associated maternal morbidities [18-20]. Nonetheless, TOLAC may bare the risk of unplanned repeat CD with its associated risk of adverse medical outcomes [20, 21].

The knowledge about birth experience in subsequent delivery after a previous CD is sparse [22-25]. Previous studies were furthermore hampered by confounding, had small or unrepresentative sampling, and thereby had limited validity and generalizability [22-25]. To fill the knowledge gap of birth experience among women with a first CD and to improve the quality of care, we aim to study the impact of the second mode of delivery on birth experience in women with a first CD.

Methods

Study population

The Swedish Pregnancy Register, founded in 2013, included in 2017 approximately 93% of all births in Sweden [26]. The register contains detailed data on the pregnant women prospectively entered into the electronic medical records by midwives and physicians in a standardized way at first antenatal visit and at every subsequent visit, ultrasound examinations, delivery and postnatal care [26]. After delivery, before discharge from hospital, women giving birth in Sweden are in many hospitals asked about their birth experience by using a visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring from 1 to 10, where 10 is a very positive and 1 is a very negative birth experience. The midwife responsible of the woman´s postnatal care mainly asks the question about birth experience. It is asked either as an oral question or through a questionnaire, varying at different maternity units. The individual VAS scores are entered in the electronic medical records by the responsible midwife and forwarded into the Swedish Pregnancy Register.

All Swedish citizens and immigrants with one-year or longer residence receive their unique personal identification number at birth or immigration. This together with our nationwide register enables a unique possibility for longitudinal research [27]. All pregnant women are offered free maternity care in Sweden and the insurance system does not influence the availability of this care. More than 98% of pregnant women participate in the antenatal care system and more than 99% of all births take place in hospitals. The hospitals range between 1, 2 and 3 level hospitals and are mainly public. [28] There are no units lead by only midwifes.

In this study, we included all women registered in the Swedish Pregnancy Register with a first cesarean delivery and a subsequent birth to a singleton, live-born infant in a cephalic presentation at or above 37 gestational weeks during 2014–2017. Women were classified as eligible for TOLAC when the presentation was cephalic and there was no placenta previa or other medical contraindication for trial of labor. The preliminary analysis showed that some regions had a lower rate of reporting birth experience, possibly due to differences in the evaluation of the VAS scale as an instrument to measure birth experience, however response rates did increase over time. To diminish confounding by organizational factors, we chose arbitrarily to exclude women giving birth in hospitals with a birth experience response rate of less than 80% in 2017 (excluded hospitals n = 23). A few hospitals (n = 7) in the southeast region of Sweden had until 2017 the opposite interpretation of the VAS score, and these hospitals were excluded since it was unclear the exact time point for reversing the VAS scale. We also excluded births with missing birth experience data, and a sensitivity analysis was performed comparing excluded and included women. In the end, the national sample gave us a population of 808 women with first and second birth in either of the remaining 12 hospitals (Fig 1). These remaining hospitals are widespread over Sweden, including a range of university clinics to smaller country-based clinics.

Fig 1

Flowchart of the study population.

Exposure

The main exposure of interest was mode of delivery in 2nd birth categorized into: 1) elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD), 2) vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or 3) unplanned repeat cesarean delivery. Women with an ERCD were used as the reference. In a supplementary analysis, we also studied intended mode of delivery (TOLAC or ERCD) as the exposure.

When studying 1st and 2nd mode of delivery and birth experience, we further categorized the exposure of interest by the 1st mode of delivery, categorized into A) elective CD or B) unplanned CD. Women, where both 1st and 2nd birth was elective CD, were used as the reference.

Outcome

Mean birth experience VAS score in the 2nd delivery was the main outcome. Previous studies have shown that about 10% of women assessed their birth as negative when using a scoring tool similar to a VAS [5]. The tenth percentile of the distribution of birth experience was 5 in our study. Thereby, to find women scoring their birth experience as negative, we dichotomized the VAS score and defined negative birth experience as VAS score ≤5.

Covariates

Based on previous studies and clinical experience, we considered the following covariates as confounders. The covariates were adjusted for in a step-wise regression analysis. In Model 1 adjustments were made for maternal characteristics including maternal age at 2nd birth, body mass index (BMI), height and cohabiting at first antenatal visit in the 2nd pregnancy, education (≤9 years of basic education, secondary school, university or college education) and self-assessed health at early 2nd pregnancy (categorized from very bad to very good). In Model 2 we adjusted for the same covariates as in Model 1 and the women´s previous childbirth experiences such as fear of childbirth in 2nd pregnancy (extra support from either midwife, obstetrician or psychologist), birth experience in 1st birth (measured through VAS score) and additionally, mode of delivery in 1st birth (elective or unplanned CD).

Statistical analyses

Maternal characteristics by mode of 2nd delivery were analyzed using the Chi-square test and Student´s t-test. Since the normality assumption of linear regression was not violated, we calculated the mean differences of birth experience (β-coefficient) through linear regression analysis.

With logistic regression models, we calculated odds ratios (OR) for negative birth experience. We also performed analysis for mean birth experience and ORs for negative birth experience by 1st and 2nd mode of delivery. We investigated possible effect modification between mode of delivery in 1st and in 2nd birth associated with the birth experience. We performed a sensitivity analysis for mean VAS scores including all hospitals, except the Southeast region. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed comparing women giving birth in the included hospitals with and without birth experience score. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS software version 9.4.

Ethical approval

In this study, there were no requirement of informed consent from the women studied. The results are presented on an aggregated level and all data was fully anonymized in the research database. The regional ethical committee at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden approved the study protocol (No 2017/2385-31/5 and No 2018/601-32).

Results

Out of the 808 included women, 69% (n = 557) had a TOLAC and 31% (n = 251) delivered by ERCD. TOLAC rates varied between 60–91% in the included hospitals. Of the women undergoing TOLAC 70% (388) had a vaginal birth (VBAC) and in 30% (n = 169) the delivery ended with an unplanned repeat cesarean. Compared with the TOLAC group, women in the ERCD group were generally older, had a higher level of education, had lower gestational age, and were more likely to have fear of childbirth (S1 Table).

Women in the VBAC group were generally younger, had lower education and their prevalence of fear of childbirth was lower in comparison with women with an ERCD (Table 1).

Table 1

Maternal characteristics by mode of delivery in 2nd birth.

Characteristics 2nd pregnancy	Mode of delivery in 2nd birth
n = 808	ERCDa		VBACb			Unplanned repeat CDc
					dp-value			dp-value
(n, %)	251	31.1	388	48.0		169	20.9
Demographics (Mean ±SD)
Age	33.2	4.9	31.0	4.3	<0.0001	32.2	4.4	0.03
Height	165.6	6.8	166.1	6.2	0.43	163.6	6.6	0.003
BMI	25.6	5.2	24.8	4.6	0.06	27.4	5.7	0.0009
Social (n, %)
Cohabiting	240	95.6	379	97.7	0.14	156	92.3	0.15
Smoker in early pregnancy	5	2.0	11	2.8	0.65	8	4.7	0.02
Alcohol Audit >6	1	0.4	2	0.5	0.95	0	0	0.67
Health (n, %)
Received care for mental health issues	15	6.0	26	6.7	0.07	5	3.0	0.13
Self-assessed health at early pregnancy					0.06			0.70
Very poor or poor	3	1.2	11	2.8		2	1.2
Neither poor or good	14	5.6	11	2.8		11	6.5
Good or very good	201	80.1	330	85.1		140	82.8
Missing or don´t know	33	13.2	36	9.3		16	9.5
Education (n, %)					0.01			0.04
≤9 years basic education	7	2.8	24	6.2		14	8.3
Secondary school education	70	27.9	142	36.6		55	32.5
University and college education	138	55.0	176	45.4		81	47.9
Missing or unknown	36	14.3	46	11.9		19	11.2
Birth experience 1st birth
(Mean ±SD)	7.6	2.3	7.6	2.2	0.94	7.3	2.4	0.22
(Median and IQR)	8.0	3.0	8.0	2.0		8.0	3.0
Missing	78	31.1	151	38.9		64	37.9
Fear of childbirth in 2nd pregnancy (n, %)	97	38.7	75	19.3	<0.0001	60	35.5	0.18
Gestational age in weeks (Mean ±SD)	38.6	0.7	39.7	1.2	<0.0001	39.6	1.4	<0.0001

aERCD, elective repeat cesarean delivery;

bVBAC, vaginal birth after cesarean;

cCD, cesarean delivery;

dp-values calculated in comparison to ERCD

The distribution of birth experience in 2nd birth by mode of delivery was skewed towards higher numbers, as shown in Fig 2. More than 60% of all women, independent of mode of delivery in 2nd birth, scored a birth experience of 8 or more (ERCD 84.5%, VBAC 73.2% and unplanned repeat CD 63.3%, respectively).

Fig 2

Histogram of birth experience after 2nd birth by mode of delivery in 2nd birth; Elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD), vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and unplanned repeat cesarean delivery (URCD).

The mean birth experience in women with an ERCD was 8.8. After adjusting for confounders, women with VBAC and unplanned repeat CD had 0.5 (95% CI; -0.9 to 0.01) and 0.9 (95% CI; -1.4 to -0.3) lower mean difference (β) of birth experience in comparison with women with an ERCD (Table 2). A similar comparison between ERCD and intended mode of delivery (TOLAC) is presented in S2 Table.

Table 2

Mean difference of birth experience by mode of delivery in 2nd birth, linear regression.

	Birth experience 2nd birth
Mode of delivery in 2nd birthb	Crude			Model 1a		Model 2a
	Mean (SD)	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
ERCD	8.8 (1.4)	Reference		Reference		Reference
VBAC	8.0 (2.0)	-0.8	-1.1 to -0.5	-0.8	-1.1 to -0.4	-0.5	-0.9 to 0.01
URCD	7.6 (2.1)	-1.2	-1.5 to -0.8	-1.1	-1.5 to -0.7	-0.9	-1.4 to -0.3

aAdjustment in

Model 1: maternal age, height, BMI, cohabiting, education, self-assessed health in 2nd pregnancy

Model 2: same as in Model 1 and fear of childbirth in 2nd pregnancy, birth experience after 1st birth and mode of delivery in 1st birth (elective vs unplanned CD)

bERCD (elective repeat cesarean delivery), VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), URCD (unplanned repeat cesarean delivery)

Women giving birth by unplanned repeat CD had an increased odds of a negative birth experience (aOR 5.0, 95% CI; 1.5 to 16.5) in comparison with ERCD (Table 3). A similar comparison between ERCD and TOLAC is shown in S3 Table.

Table 3

Odds of negative birth experience by mode of delivery in 2nd birth, logistic regression.

	Negative birth experience 2nd birth
Mode of delivery in 2nd birthb	Crude				Model 1a		Model 2a
	n	%	OR	95% CI	aOR	95% CI	aOR	95% CI
ERCD	8	3.2	Reference		Reference		Reference
VBAC	46	11.9	4.1	1.9–8.8	3.8	1.6–9.3	2.2	0.7–7.2
URCD	29	17.2	6.3	2.8–14.1	6.2	2.4–15.8	5.0	1.5–16.5

aAdjustment in

Model 1: maternal age, height, BMI, cohabiting, education, self-assessed health in 2nd pregnancy

Model 2: same as in Model 1 and fear of childbirth in 2nd pregnancy, birth experience after 1st birth and mode of delivery in 1st birth (elective vs unplanned CD)

bERCD (elective repeat cesarean delivery), VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), URCD (unplanned repeat cesarean delivery)

When further studying 1st mode of delivery, it seems that women with a first elective cesarean and a second unplanned repeat CD had the highest odds of negative birth experience (crude OR 7.3, 95% CI; 1.5–35.5) (Table 4). When investigating the possibility of effect modification by mode of delivery in 1st birth (elective vs unplanned CD), the overall interaction term was non-significant (p = 0.65).

Table 4

Crude mean difference of birth experience and crude odds of negative birth experience by mode of delivery in 1st and 2nd birth.

Mode of delivery in 1st and 2nd birth	Birth experience 2nd birth				Negative birth experience in 2nd birth
	n	Mean (SD)	β	95% CI	n	%	Crude OR	95% CI
Elective CD in 1st birth, 2nd birtha
ERCD (Reference)	96	8.8 (1.4)	Reference		3	3.1	Reference
VBAC	98	8.1 (1.8)	-0.7	-1.2 to -0.2	10	10.2	3.5	0.9–13.2
URCD	21	7.3 (2.4)	-1.5	-2.4 to -0.6	4	19.1	7.3	1.5–35.5
Unplanned CD in 1st birth, 2nd birtha
ERCD	155	8.8 (1.4)	0.0	-0.5 to 0.5	5	3.2	1.0	0.2–4.4
VBAC	290	8.0 (2.1)	-0.8	-1.2 to -0.4	36	12.4	4.4	1.3–14.6
URCD	148	7.7 (2.1)	-1.1	-1.6 to -0.6	25	16.9	6.3	1.8–21.5

aERCD (elective repeat cesarean delivery), VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), URCD (unplanned repeat cesarean delivery)

When including all hospitals in the Swedish Pregnancy Register, except the Southeast region with reverse interpretation of the VAS-scale, our sensitivity analysis showed little discrepancy from the results shown in Table 2 (mean VAS in ERCD 8.8, SD 1.4; VBAC 7.9, SD 2.0; URCD 7.5, SD 2.3). Finally, in the hospitals included women with missing data for birth experience did not significantly differ in respect of maternal characteristics and mode of delivery (S4 Table).

Discussion

In this population-based cohort study, we found an association between mode of delivery and birth experience among women with a previous CD. Most women with a previous cesarean scored their birth experience as positive independent of second mode of delivery. Women having a vaginal second birth had on average a slightly lower mean VAS score. Women with an unplanned repeat CD had the lowest mean VAS score and a five-fold increased odds of negative birth experience in comparison with women with an ERCD. It seems that women who had an elective CD in first and unplanned CD in second delivery were at highest risk for having a negative birth experience.

Strengths and limitations

The major strength of this study was the population-based design with access to prospectively collected data in standardized electronic medical records. A population-based study design strengthens the external validity and it´s generalizability through less selection bias. All the information on maternal characteristics, pregnancy and delivery outcome was recorded before the outcome of this study, minimizing the risk of both selection and recall bias. As many as 69% of all women performed a TOLAC and 70% of them succeeded with a VBAC, which is in line with previous studies, strengthening the consistency and generalizability of our study results [29, 30].

VAS score is an accessible, easy and understandable tool, today still used in the clinics to evaluate overall birth experience measured a few days after childbirth. VAS is a valid prediction instrument of birth experience and, as a simple alternative, have a high correlation with other birth experience scales such as Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire B and is shown to have a persistence over time [8, 31]. We therefore assume that the likelihood of measurement bias is low when using the VAS score in this study. However, birth experience may in each woman entail a variety of feelings and experiences in many different dimensions [5], thus, it is important to be aware of the limitations of this scale as a tool for deeper understanding of the birth experience. Additionally, the question asked about birth experience is not standardized and non-anonymous, as it is asked by the midwife responsible for the postnatal care. Women may be intimidated or hesitant to answer the question honestly in the presence of a midwife with the tendency to bias the response toward a positive experience. There is also a risk that when asked about experience shortly after the birth the women might be affected by the so called halo-effect. Evidence shows that women rate their experience more positive shortly after birth compared with ratings later [5]. However, this halo effect most likely affects all women regardless of mode of delivery.

This study has other limitations. We included 12 of the 42 hospitals in the country based on if they had a VAS response rate of 80% or higher. The 12 hospitals may not be representative of all Swedish hospitals, but including hospitals with low VAS response rate could introduce more selection bias on individual level e.g. low response hospitals may only ask women when birth experience was presumably negative. Our sensitivity analysis did however show that the mean VAS scores where about the same when including all possible hospitals (excluding the southeast region). Women giving birth in the included hospitals but having missing VAS had similar maternal characteristics and birth outcome as those included in the study population. We therefore conclude that selection to be scored with VAS appeared to be at random in the included hospitals. Nevertheless, there is always a risk of residual confounding. Additionally, the study period is short which limits statistical power.

Interpretations

This study confirms that birth experience is associated with mode of delivery in women with a previous CD. This finding is in line with previous studies based on intervention programs with education of the women and decision-aids for counselling programs, aiming at improving birth experience [22-25]. However, these studies are mostly with small and clinical-based samples, subject to selection bias in opt-in or loss to follow-up, or with unadjusted confounding of parity or gestational age [22-24]. We found a slightly lower mean birth experience among women with a VBAC, which is different from Cleary Goldman et al. who found that women with a VBAC were most satisfied [22]. This difference in comparison with our results may be explained by the intervention program conducted in the study by Cleary Goldman et al. motivating women to perform a TOLAC [22]. In Sweden, women with one previous cesarean delivery are recommended to undergo TOLAC if there are no contraindications for vaginal delivery. Women discuss mode of delivery with the antenatal midwife and she is encouraged to a trial of labor. If the woman is hesitant about trial of labor, she will be referred to an obstetrician. Obstetricians in Sweden tend to be generous allowing women with one previous cesarean having an ERCD upon request. Therefore, an explanation for general high birth experiences regardless of delivery mode could be the shared decision and good quality of care. Shorten et al. also found higher VAS score among VBAC women, examined 6–8 weeks after birth [23, 25]. Women with a VBAC in our sample might have had higher scores if they had been measured later after birth. However there are studies showing the consistency of a measured birth experience even after a certain time has passed [31]. Shorten et al. also had a great difference in successful VBAC rates in the different sites (48% vs 74%, expected VBAC rates are 60–80% [19, 20, 29]), reducing its generalizability [23]. Cleary Goldman et al. had a large loss of women, only enrolling 95 women of 316 eligible, disposable for selection bias and also including premature births probably affecting birth experience [22]. When including women with mixed parity and mixing preterm and term births there is a possibility of diluting the results.

By excluding women with limited ability to speak or understand English as in the study by Emmet et al. the generalizability decreases [24]. Furthermore, women lost to follow-up were younger and had higher deprivation scores, increasing risk of selection bias depending on socio-economic status [24]. Emmet et al. showed that women with an unplanned repeat CD had the lowest VAS score (mean 48.5, scale 0–100), [24] which is in line with our results. However the mean rating was very low in comparison with our birth experience outcome, possibly explained by a measurement context bias with the VAS scale; the context bias is when the scale has many better or worse states presented in the scale and therefore the values may be depressed or enhanced due to cognitive processes used by the respondents [32].

After an intervention, as in all three above mentioned studies, the increasing knowledge and awareness due to the intervention may not reflect the birth experience of the general population, introducing bias and less generalizability.

This study shows that it is of importance not only to take into account the risk of medical and physical outcomes in women with a previous CD but also acting on the risk of negative birth experience, since this can have long-term implications on the woman and her family [2-4]. An unplanned CD is associated with negative birth experience in the 1st birth, confirming that this group of women are a more sensitive group [5]. We also indicate that whether the 1st cesarean was planned or not may influence the birth experience in the 2nd birth, in women with a first elective CD and a following unplanned CD possibly reflecting the disappointment of a first failed attempt of vaginal birth. Nonetheless, this study also supports TOLAC, since the vast majority of women giving birth after cesarean rate their birth as positive regardless of mode of delivery.

After one previous cesarean most women in Sweden are recommended and encouraged to go through a TOLAC, without attending any special program of care during pregnancy. During labor, women with a previous CD are considered having higher risk and are medically monitored more closely than low risk women. We suggest that women with a previous CD may benefit from an individual care plan throughout pregnancy and delivery. After childbirth, they ought to be screened for negative birth experience and offered counselling. We need to increase the awareness and skills among caregivers, with the aim of decreasing adverse outcomes and improve birth experience. More studies are needed in providing better support and maternity care.

Conclusion

Most women with a previous cesarean scored their birth experience as positive independently of second mode of delivery. However, women performing a trial of labor ending up with a repeat unplanned cesarean had a five-fold higher odds of negative birth experience in comparison with women having elective repeat cesarean. Women with a previous cesarean, are at risk of adverse outcomes and may benefit from special attention, care and support before and during delivery. After delivery, women with an unplanned second CD should be screened for birth experience and offered counselling when needed.

Maternal characteristics by planned mode of delivery in 2nd birth.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Mean difference of birth experience by planned mode of delivery in 2nd birth, linear regression.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Odds of negative birth experience by planned mode of delivery in 2nd birth, logistic regression.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Maternal characteristics by registered birth experience in 2nd birth.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-19552

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: a population-based cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Lindblad Wollmann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: This article aims to investigate the birth experience related to the mode of de delivery after a previous cesarean section using data from a population-based cohort of women registered in the Swedish Pregnancy register. The topic of this study is of interest, whereas there are only few data in the literature. The article is well written and provide relevant information. But, some major revision should be done.

First, as noted by the two reviewers, the authors state that they included patients with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC. However, they don’t give any information in the methods section about what they consider being eligible for TOLAC. The authors should also provide details on the parameters which have leaded to the decision of TOLAC or ERCD.

Second, as noted by reviewer 1, another important point is that it would be relevant to compare the birth experience regarding the intent mode of delivery, not only the actual mode of delivery, i.e. TOLAC vs ERCD, not only VBAC vs ERCD vs URCD.

Third, as noted by reviewer 2, major revision should be done to precise some results.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Guillaume Ducarme, MD, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the database used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have their data used in research, please include this information.

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article aims to investigate the birth experience related to the mode of de delivery after a previous cesarean section.

It’s an interesting point whereas there are only few data in the literature. The article is well written and provide relevant information.

Here are several comments:

In the abstract, the authors state that they included patients with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC. However, they don’t give any information in the methods section about what they consider being eligible for TOLAC. Indeed not every patients with a previous cesarean section are eligible for TOLAC, depending on different surgical and obstetrical parameters.

The authors should provide details on the parameters which have leaded to the decision of TOLAC or ERCD. Did the patients have always the choice? In this kind of study, choice of the patients is a key-point since we can hypothesize that the birth experience might be better when the patients could actually choose the mode of delivery.

Another important point is that it would be relevant to compare the birth experience regarding the intent mode of delivery, not only the actual mode of delivery, i.e. TOLAC vs ERCD, not only VBAC vs ERCD vs URCD. Indeed, at the time we counsel patients, we don’t know how TOLAC will work…

VAS is a very poor tool to assess a complex feeling as birth experience. Even if the authors acknowledge limits of VAS in the discussion section, it should be more pointed out.

The figures (flow-chart and histograms) are of poor quality.

Reviewer #2: General comment:

The article shows data from a population-based cohort of women registered in the Swedish Pregnancy register. The topic of this study is of interest. As described by the authors, few publications focus on women's experience in second birth among women with a first cesarean. I found the manuscript well written overall.

Abstract

The abstract is clear. Minor comments: you may detail the number of women and frequencies in each categories for the exposure in the results section( n(%) for ERCD , URCD, VBAC). I would prefer using the terms of ‘odds’ instead of ‘risk’ when saying ‘URCD had five-fold …etc’.

Introduction

Very clear, thank you.

Methods

Please be more precise, if possible, when describing how women usually report their experience: is the scoring is self-administered or is the question asked by / in presence of the midwife? Are the answers anonymous? It could be a point of discussion: women may be intimidated to answer the question honestly in the presence of the caregiver tending to bias the responses toward a positive experience. Is the question about childbirth’s experience standardized across maternity units?

What do you mean by ‘organizational factors’ that could have an effect on the rate of reporting birth experience? Was the mean birth experience in these maternity units with birth experience response rate of less than 80% different from those with higher response rate ? Why choosing the cut off of 80% for exclusion?

Please consider rephrasing the sentences explaining the cut-off of 5 for defining negative birth experience. Here is a suggestion (line 130-131): “Previous studies … […]. The tenth percentile of the distribution of birth experience was 5 in our study. Thereby, to find women …etc”.

Do you have any information wether the decision of TOLAC or ERCD was shared with the women or decided only by the medical team? Many studies dealing with birth experience demonstrate the importance of shared-decision making process with the women; and that feeling of not having the choice was associated with lower satisfaction and experience, whatever the outcome.

Do you also have information on why ERCD was performed instead of TOLAC ? Is there clinical factors that systematically contra-indicate TOLAC and are those standardized across hospitals? Was the rate of TOLAC homogeneous across hospitals?

Statistical analysis

Before performing Student t test and linear regression, have you checked that hypothesizing a normal distribution seemed correct? Please consider justifying that somewhere.

Results

The Table 1 is not very clear and in line with your method section. As your exposure variable is 1) ECRD ; 2) unplanned repeated CD ; 3) VBAC, I recommend not to compare ERCD with TOLAC but to compare ERCD with 2) and 3) (two-by-two), as described in the method. It will also be more in line with the way you analysed them in the multivariable models. The rate of TOLAC may just be detailed in the text. Perhaps the differences in women’s characteristics between ERCD and TOLAC might be added as supplemental data ?

Line 178: the step-wise method for adjustment should be introduce in the method section and not in the results.

Table 2: it’s not very clear how you selected the confounders for mode l1 and model 2. Please better explain that in the method section.

Table 4: I’m not sure to clearly understand the table. What is the category of reference for the strata ‘unplanned CD in 1st birth, 2nd birth’? As far as I know, stratifying the results imply that the analyses of the effect of exposure on outcome are performed separately in each strata of a confounder (here elective or unplanned CD in first birth). Shouldn't the reference in stratum 2 be ERCD (but among women with 1st unplanned CD) as well?

Line 198-9: I’m not sure you can conclude so strongly of a higher risk of negative second birth experience for women with unplanned CD in 1st birth given the very small number of women and the very wide confidence interval. Perhaps moderate the sentence with ‘it seems that …’?

Table S1: it may be interesting to describe difference in hospital characteristics among women with and without missing data on childbirth experience (information as private maternity status and university status).

Discussion

Line 18-19: same comment as above.

Line 240-242: Couldn’t this assumption be easily verified?: were the scores of birth experience lower in hospitals were the scoring rate was lower than 80%?

Line 249: it’s not clear on which studies you referred to: what kind of intervention programs do you mean? We understand it later in the section but detailed it briefly here for a better understanding.

As commented before, I suggest that you discuss more about the importance of share decision making process and women’s involvement in this. It may be an element of explanation as to why the experience is high whatever the outcome of delivery.

You also introduce the importance of postpartum counselling in the conclusion. It’s an important element of discussion that, in my view, merit to be mention in the discussion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Blanc-Petitjean Pauline

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Plos_One_birth_experience.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jan 2020

We have performed major revisions and answered the questions from the reviewers. We have incorporated all your suggestions into our revision. We are very thankful of your help.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Feb 2020

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: a population-based cohort study

PONE-D-19-19552R1

Dear Dr. Lindblad Wollmann,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Guillaume Ducarme, MD, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): All comments have been addressed. As noted by Reviewer 2 (Pauline Blanc-Petitjean), substantial modifications have been made by the authors, the answers are relevant, and presentation of the results is more clear.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Substantial modifications have been made by the authors and the answers are relevant. Presentation of the results is more clear. Thank you.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Pauline Blanc-Petitjean

18 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-19552R1

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: a population-based cohort study

Dear Dr. Lindblad Wollmann:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Guillaume Ducarme

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE