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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2151-2159.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5952.

Effect of a Patient-Centered Decision Support Tool on Rates of Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery: The PROCEED Randomized Clinical Trial

Miriam Kuppermann  1   2 , Anjali J Kaimal  3 , Cinthia Blat  1 , Juan Gonzalez  1 , Mari-Paule Thiet  1 , Yamilee Bermingham  4 , Anna L Altshuler  5 , Allison S Bryant  3 , Peter Bacchetti  2 , William A Grobman  6
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a Patient-Centered Decision Support Tool on Rates of Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery: The PROCEED Randomized Clinical Trial

Miriam Kuppermann et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: Reducing cesarean delivery rates in the US is an important public health goal; despite evidence of the safety of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, most women have scheduled repeat cesarean deliveries. A decision support tool could help increase trial-of-labor rates.

Objective: To analyze the effect of a patient-centered decision support tool on rates of trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and decision quality.

Design, setting, and participants: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted in Boston, Chicago, and the San Francisco Bay area. A total of 1485 English- or Spanish-speaking women with 1 prior cesarean delivery and no contraindication to trial of labor were enrolled between January 2016 and January 2019; follow-up was completed in June 2019.

Interventions: Participants were randomized to use a tablet-based decision support tool prior to 25 weeks' gestation (n=742) or to receive usual care (without the tool) (n=743).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was trial of labor; vaginal birth was the main secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes focused on maternal and neonatal outcomes and decision quality.

Results: Among 1485 patients (mean age, 34.0 [SD, 4.5] years), 1470 (99.0%) completed the trial (n = 735 in both randomization groups) and were included in the analysis. Trial-of-labor rates did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups (43.3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted absolute risk difference, -2.78% [95% CI, -7.80% to 2.25%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.05]). There were no statistically significant differences in vaginal birth rates (31.8% in both groups; adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.04% [95% CI, -4.80% to 4.71%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.16]) or in any of the other 6 clinical maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. There also were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in the 5 decision quality measures (eg, mean decisional conflict scores were 17.2 and 17.5, respectively; adjusted mean difference, -0.38 [95% CI, -1.81 to 1.05]; scores >25 are considered clinically important).

Conclusions and relevance: Among women with 1 previous cesarean delivery, use of a decision support tool compared with usual care did not significantly change the rate of trial of labor. Further research may be needed to assess the efficacy of this tool in other clinical settings or when implemented at other times in pregnancy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kuppermann reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the March of Dimes, and the UCSF Preterm Birth Initiative funded by Mark and Lynne Benioff and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr Kaimal reported receiving grants from the NIH. Dr Gonzalez reported receiving grant funding from California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr Altshuler reported receiving grants from the Society of Family Planning. Dr Bacchetti reported receiving grant funding from the NIH, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research. Dr Grobman reported receiving grant funding from the NIH, the March of Dimes, and the Preeclampsia Foundation. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Participant Flow in the Prior Cesarean Decision (PROCEED) Randomized Clinical Trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. . Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010;(191):1-397. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018;68(13):1-47. - PubMed
    1. Clark EAS, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6)(suppl):S2-S10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.028 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Creanga AA, Bateman BT, Butwick AJ, et al. . Morbidity associated with cesarean delivery in the United States: is placenta accreta an increasingly important contributor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(3):384.e1-384.e11. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maternal, infant, and child health—2020. Healthy People website. Accessed June 9, 2018. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/maternal-infa...

Publication types