Abstract
Objective
To identify socio-cultural and clinician determinants in the decision-making process in the choice for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) or elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) in delivering women.
Methods
A tailored questionnaire focused on epidemiological, socio-cultural and obstetric data was administered to 133 patients; of these, 95 were admitted for assistance at birth at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” (FPG) IRCCS, Rome, and 38 at S. Chiara Hospital (SCH), Trento, Italy. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression modeling were performed.
Results
Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates were higher at SCH than at FPG (68.4% vs. 23.2%; P < 0.05). Maternal age in the TOLAC/VBAC group was significantly higher at SCH than at FPG (37.1 vs. 34.9 years, P < 0.05). High levels of education and no-working condition corresponded to a lower rate of VBAC. Proposal on delivery mode after a previous CS was missed in the majority of cases. Participation in prenatal course was significantly less among women in the ERCS groups. Using logistic regression, the following determinants were found to be statistically significant in the decision-making process: maternal age [odds ratio (OR) = 0.968 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.941–0.999); P = 0.019], education level [OR = 0.618 (95% CI 0.419–0.995); P = 0.043], information received after the previous CS [OR = 0.401 (95% CI 0.195–1.252); P = 0.029], participation in antenatal courses [OR = 0.534 (95% CI 0.407–1.223); P = 0.045] and self-determination in attempting TOLAC [OR = 0.756 (95% CI 0.522–1.077); P = 0.037].
Conclusion
In the attempt to promote person-centered care, increases in TOLAC/VBAC rates could be achieved by focusing on individual maternal needs. An ad hoc strategy for making birth safer should begin from accurate information at the time of the previous CS.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
Data sharing statement: All data included in the present paper are available.
References
1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.Search in Google Scholar
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ. Births in the United States, 2016. NCHS Data Brief 2017;287:1–8.Search in Google Scholar
3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. Australia’s health 2014. Chapter 6. Health through your life. 6.2. Cesarean section. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia, p. 198.Search in Google Scholar
4. Chung SH, Seol HJ, Choi YS, Oh SY, Kim A, Bae CW. Changes in the cesarean section rate in Korea (1982–2012) and a review of the associated factors. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1341–52.10.3346/jkms.2014.29.10.1341Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2016;123:559–68.10.1111/1471-0528.13284Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China’s 50% delivery section rate: is it too high? Br J Obstect Gynecol 2015;122:160–5.10.1111/1471-0528.12971Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113.10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR, et al. The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343.10.1371/journal.pone.0148343Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. J Am Med Assoc 2015;314:2263–70.10.1001/jama.2015.15553Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Robson MS. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2011;12:23–39.10.1017/S0965539501000122Search in Google Scholar
11. World Health Organization. WHO statement on cesarean section rates. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
12. ACOG Releases New Guidance Aimed at Making VBAC. October 24, 2017. Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar
13. Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Identification of obstetric targets for reducing cesarean section rate using the Robson Ten Group Classification in a tertiary level hospital. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;189:91–5.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.03.030Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e217–33.10.1097/AOG.0000000000002398Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Lundgren I, Healy P, Carroll M, Begley C, Matterne A, Gross MM, et al. Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean section): a study from countries with low VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:350.10.1186/s12884-016-1144-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:16.10.1186/s12884-015-0441-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Colais P, Bontempi K, Pinnarelli L, Piscicelli C, Mappa I, Fusco D, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean birth in Italy: variations among areas of residence and hospitals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:383.10.1186/s12884-018-2018-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Draisci G, Zanfini BA, Scambia G, Lanzone A, et al. Role of maternal characteristics and epidural analgesia on caesarean section rate in groups 1 and 3 according to Robson’s classification: a cohort study in an Italian university hospital setting. Br Med J Open 2018;8:e020011.10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020011Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Triunfo S, Petrillo F, Lofoco F, Volpe M, Lanzone A. Cost analysis for deliveries according to maternal age classes for moving to a personalized approach in the health care. JMFNM. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1605592. [Epub ahead of print].10.1080/14767058.2019.1605592Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Munro S, Kornelsen J, Corbett K, Wilcox E, Bansback N, Janssen P. Do women have a choice? Care providers’ and decision makers’ perspectives on barriers to access of health services for birth after a previous cesarean. Birth 2017;44:153–60.10.1111/birt.12270Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Keedle H, Schmied V, Burns E, Dahlen HG. Women’s reasons for, and experiences of, choosing a homebirth following a caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:206.10.1186/s12884-015-0639-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Attanasio LB, Kozhimannil KB, Kjerulff KH. Women’s preference for vaginal birth after a first delivery by cesarean. Birth 2019;46:51–60.10.1111/birt.12386Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Moffat M, Bell JS, Porter M, Lawton S, Hundley V, Danielian P, et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: a qualitative study. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2007;114:86–93.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01154.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: a narrative analysis. Birth 2014;41: 178–84.10.1111/birt.12082Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Meddings F, Phipps FM, Haith-Cooper M, Haigh J. Vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): exploring women’s perceptions. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:160–7.10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01496.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Nilsson C, Lalor J, Begley C, Carroll M, Gross MM, Grylka-Baeschlin S, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: views of women from countries with low VBAC rates. Women Birth 2017;30:481–90.10.1177/1049732315612041Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: a narrative analysis. Birth 2014;41:178–84.10.1111/birt.12082Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Dexter S, Windsor S, Watkinson S. Authors’ reply: antenatal discussion of the risks and benefits of VBAC and ERCS. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2014;121:1441.10.1111/1471-0528.12882Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. OptiBirth Project. http://www.optibirth.eu/optibirth/.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
