MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2557690792 · doi:10.20381/ruor-462

Childbirth Decision Making Processes: Influences on Mode of Birth After a Previous Caesarean Section

2016· article· en· W2557690792 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esther S. Shoemaker

Notice bibliographique

RevueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCaesarean sectionChildbirthObstetricsSection (typography)MedicinePregnancyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: An increasing proportion of Canadian women are experiencing a Caesarean section (CS) and a subsequent repeat CS. While CS can be necessary and lifesaving for mothers and their infants in some situations, it is also associated with greater morbidity risks to women and infants than vaginal birth. Clinical practice guidelines recommend the involvement of pregnant women in making decisions about mode of birth and shared decision making improves the informed consent process. This research examines the factors that influence mode of birth after a previous CS. Methods: Two cross sectional descriptive studies and a prospective pre-post cohort study with control were conducted to investigate the high use of repeat CS at the levels of health care providers, maternity care clients, and the organizational structure of a birthing unit. 1. Interviews and surveys with obstetricians, family physicians, midwives, and nurses were conducted to investigate the attitudes, values, and perceptions that guide their care practices for clients with a previous CS. The specific research question was: What are the factors that influence the practices of maternity care providers (obstetricians, family physicians, midwives, and nurses) regarding mode of birth after a previous CS? Data was analyzed using iterative deductive and inductive coding. 2. Interviews and surveys were conducted during pregnancy and after giving birth with healthy women who have had a previous CS to explore their decision making processes regarding mode of birth after a previous CS. The specific research question was: How do women eligible for a VBAC make decisions about their upcoming mode of birth? A thematic framework approach was used for data analysis. 3. Data from the Better Outcomes Registry and Network (“BORN”) Ontario was analyzed to examine the effectiveness of a hospital based strategy on overall proportions of CS and within Robson groups 1, 2a, and 5. The Caesarean section reduction (CARE) strategy includes interventions that target health care providers, pregnant women, and hospital policies. Results: 1. Maternity care providers would recommend a vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) for healthy pregnant women with a previous CS. They had different perceptions of the safety of birth to the health of women and infants and different approaches to engage in decision making during consultation. Providers believed women make their decision about mode of birth outside of the clinical consultation and often prior to their subsequent pregnancy. 2. The main themes that influenced the decisions of maternity care clients about mode of birth were mothers’ experiential reasoning regarding mode of birth and recovery, experiential knowledge from significant others, scheduling of CS regardless of the mode of birth decision, rating and prioritizing risks, fear of risks, and decisional conflict. When women discussed the factors that impacted their decisions about mode of birth six to eight weeks after they had given birth, the main themes were the recovery experience and fear related to the mode of birth. A lack of time during consultation was identified as a major barrier inhibiting shared decision making, specifically among clients of obstetricians. Other barriers included reliance on routine obstetric practices that are not evidence based. 3. Proportions of CS decreased at the intervention hospital by 3.9% (p=0.0006), from 30.3% (n=964) in 2009/10 to 26.4% (n=803) in 2012/13. During the same time frame, proportions of CS in the control group were stable with 28.1% (n=23,694) in 2009/10 and 28.2% (n=23,683) in 2012/13. Within the Robson classification system, the proportions of repeat CS among all low risk women with a previous CS decreased at the intervention hospital by 5.6% (p=0.0044) from 84.3% to 78.7%. In the control group, also fewer women had a repeat CS over the study period, but the decrease was smaller with 3.9% (p<0.0001) from 84.5% to 80.6%. Conclusion: A true shared decision making process addresses the power imbalance between providers and women through an incorporation of the clinical expertise of providers and the experiential expertise of pregnant women before reaching a decision about mode of birth. The use of routine obstetric practices that are not evidence based inhibited women to make decisions about their mode of birth. The introduction of the CARE strategy to a hospital birthing unit was associated with improvements in proportions of CS and VBAC among low risk women.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,297
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,590

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,377
Écart entre enseignants0,333 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Même sujetMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207