MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557690792 · doi:10.20381/ruor-462

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionChildbirthObstetricsSection (typography)MedicinePregnancyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207