Socio-cultural and clinician determinants in the maternal decision-making process in the choice for trial of labor vs. elective repeated cesarean section: a questionnaire comparison between Italian settings

Social disparities in delivery choice among patients with history of cesarean

OBJECTIVE

Given the call to reduce rates of non-medically indicated cesarean deliveries (CDs) by encouraging trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), this study looks at social characteristics of patients choosing a TOLAC versus a scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) to determine disparities regarding delivery method choice.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one CD between April 29, 2015-April 29, 2020. Patients were divided based on type of delivery chosen at admission. Chi-squared tests examined proportional differences between groups and logistic regression models examined odd ratios of choosing TOLAC versus SRCD according to socially dependent categories including race/ethnicity, health insurance, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).

RESULTS

1,983 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that patients with a high SVI (reference: low/medium SVI) (AOR 2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.5), self-identified as Black/ African American (AOR: 2.4, CI: 1.6, 3.6) or Hispanic/Latina (AOR: 2.0, CI: 1.4, 2.8) (reference: White), had public insurance (reference: private insurance) (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.8, 5.0), and who had an obese BMI (reference: non-obese BMI) were more likely to opt for a TOLAC rather than SRCD.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate differences in delivery method preferences. Specifically, more disadvantaged patients are more likely to choose TOLAC, suggesting that social and economic factors may play a role in delivery preferences. These findings have implications for improving individualized counselling and engaging in shared decision-making around mode of delivery.

Women's views and preferences regarding the mode of birth after cesarean section: Polish cross-sectional web-based survey

OBJECTIVE

Currently, the most common indication for cesarean section is a previous cesarean section. Some of them are performed for no medical reasons. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the preferences and expectations of women concerning birth after cesarean section. This study's main aim was to understand the women's points of view on the mode of birth after cesarean.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted, and data was collected using an original structured online questionnaire. The study group consisted of 733 pregnant Polish women who had previously undergone a cesarean birth.

RESULTS

Women more often preferred vaginal birth after cesarean section (73.26%) and less frequently (23.33%) chose elective cesarean section. Women preferring VBAC when making decisions were guided by the benefits, opportunities, and risks associated with each mode of birth. For women preferring elective cesarean section the only highly significant factor was the experience of previous deliveries. Women mainly use Internet sources and the support of other women giving birth after cesarean section. More than half of the women did not talk about the mode of birth with their midwife, and every fifth did not talk about it with the obstetrician.

CONCLUSION

Obstetric history and personal beliefs about birth after cesarean section, motivations, and concerns about childbirth affect women's preferences regarding the mode of birth. It is necessary to educate women, in particular, talks about the opportunities and risks associated with cesarean birth carried out by the medical staff at an early stage of pregnancy.

Women's views of birth after cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Vaginal birth is a safe mode of childbirth for the majority of women after cesarean section (CS). However, data show that women who have undergone a CS are more likely to have an elective CS (ECS) than a vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in many areas of the world.

AIM

This study aimed to review the literature about women's mode of birth preferences and attitudes and the underlying reasons for, and factors associated with, their preferences.

METHODS

This is narrative literature review. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched, limiting the results to non-interventional studies published between 1990 and 2020. Twenty-one articles were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The review found 34 different factors that influence women's preferences. Five factors influenced both VBAC and ECS preference, depending on the study. The most common factors having a dualistic effect on preference were: medical staff recommendation, doctor's opinion, and fear of pain. The most common factors were: desire to experience natural childbirth, faster/easier recovery, support from doctor's, and midwife's opinion. Among the factors influencing the preference for ECS, two were particularly prominent: predictability, controllability and comfortability of CS and the belief that CS is safer for the baby and/or mother.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review showed that there are a variety of factors that influence women's preference for the mode of delivery after CS. Some of these have a dualistic effect according to the study. The key to making an informed decision regarding the mode of delivery is communication with medical professionals.

A Decade of Wishes-Changes in Maternal Preference of the Mode of Delivery among Polish Women over the Last Decade

Background and Objectives: The maternal preference of mode of delivery is an important problem in respect of patient's autonomy and shared decision-making. The objective of the study was to obtain information about women's preferences of the mode of delivery and knowledge about the cesarean section and its' consequences. Materials and Methods: The study was based on a survey filled in by 1175 women in 2010 and 1033 women in 2020. Respondents were asked about their preference of mode of delivery, possible factors influencing their decision and their knowledge about risks and benefits of cesarean section. Results: There was a significant increase in the rate of women who declared cesarean section as their preferred mode of delivery, from 43.97% in 2010 to 56.03% in 2020 (p < 0.05). In 2010 26.51% of women thought that choice of mode of delivery should be their autonomic decision, 46.36% preferred decision-sharing with their obstetrician, 25.64% thought that cesarean section should be performed for medical indications only (respectively 34.86%, 44.45% and 19.38% in 2020). Conclusions: There has been a significant increase in the rate of Polish women who prefer cesarean delivery over the last decade, as well as in the rate of women who consider the mode of delivery as their autonomic decision.

Old and novel insights into emergency peripartum hysterectomy: a time-trend analysis

PURPOSE

To assess changing trends, role of the triad patient-pregnancy-health professionals and health care cost in emergency peripartum hysterectomy (EPH).

METHODS

Demographics, indications, perinatal outcomes, perioperative complications in EPH cases performed in a 10-year period were extracted from the local birth registry. Experience of health professionals in the management of the post-partum haemorrhage was valued. Two subgroups (Period I, 2009-2013 vs. Period II, 2014-2018) were recognized. Overall and detailed EPH ratios/1000 deliveries were calculated. Cost analysis was achieved in agreement with the diagnosis-related group (DGR) system.

RESULTS

A total of 39 EPH were performed among 36,053 deliveries. EPH incidence increased from 0.8 to 1.32‰ across study periods (p < 0.001). The mean maternal age (36.9 ± 4.7 vs. 38.9 ± 5.9 years, p = 0.035) and the high socio-economic status (0 vs. 19.2%, p = 0.027) were statistically different. Multiparity (84.6 vs. 96.2%, p = 0.005), previous caesarean section (CS) (0.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.2 ± 1.6, p = 0.049), and emergent CS (7.7 vs. 19.2%, p = 0.048) were found statistically different. In Period II, increased attempts in conservative approaches (7.7 vs. 36.8%, p = 0.007), reduction in blood loss (3184 ± 1753 vs. 2511 ± 1252 mL, p = 0.045), advanced age of gynecologists performing EPH (54.5 ± 9.2 vs. 60.3 ± 6.4 years, p = 0.024), and augmented health care costs (mean DRG of € 2.782 vs. 3.371,95, p < 0.001) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

As a "near-miss" event, advances on identification of EPH factors are mandatory. Time-trend analyses might add information and address novel strategies.