Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jun;10(2):161-72.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00429.x.

Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids

Clare L Emmett  1 , Deirdre J Murphy, Roshni R Patel, Tom Fahey, Claire Jones, Ian W Ricketts, Peter Gregor, Maureen Macleod, Alan A Montgomery; DiAMOND Study Group
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids

Clare L Emmett et al. Health Expect. 2007 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To develop and pilot two computer-based decision aids to assist women with decision-making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section (CS), which could then be evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial.

Background: Women with a previous CS are faced with a decision between repeat elective CS and vaginal birth after caesarean. Research has shown that women may benefit from access to comprehensive information about the risks and benefits of the delivery options.

Design: A qualitative pilot study of two novel decision aids, an information program and a decision analysis program, which were developed by a multidisciplinary research team.

Participants and setting: 15 women who had recently given birth and had previously had a CS and 11 pregnant women with a previous CS, recruited from two UK hospitals. Women were interviewed and observed using the decision aids.

Results: Participants found both decision aids useful and informative. Most liked the computer-based format. Participants found the utility assessment of the decision analysis program acceptable although some had difficulty completing the tasks required. Following the pilot study improvements were made to expand the program content, the decision analysis program was accompanied by a training session and a website version of the information program was developed to allow repeat access.

Conclusions: This pilot study was an essential step in the design of the decision aids and in establishing their acceptability and feasibility. In general, participating women viewed the decision aids as a welcome addition to routine antenatal care. A randomized trial has been conducted to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the decision aids.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit . The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
    1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Births: preliminary data for 2002. National Vital Statistics Report, 2003; 51: 4–5. - PubMed
    1. Nassar N, Sullivan E. Australia's Mothers and Babies 1999. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2001.
    1. Eden KB, Hashima JN, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Guise J‐M. Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: a review of evidence. Birth, 2004; 31: 49–60. - PubMed
    1. Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Women's experience of decision‐making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2006; 113: 1438–1445. - PubMed

Publication types