Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Feasibility of Conducting a Trial Assessing Benefits and Risks of Planned Caesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study

Feasibility of Conducting a Trial Assessing Benefits and Risks of Planned Caesarean Section... IntroductionThough interest is growing for trials comparing planned delivery mode (vaginal delivery [VD]; cesarean section [CS]) in low-risk nulliparous women, appropriate study design is unclear. Our objective was to assess feasibility of three designs (preference trial [PCT], randomized controlled trial [RCT], partially randomized patient preference trial [PRPPT]) for a trial comparing planned delivery mode in low-risk women.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of low-risk, nulliparous pregnant women (N = 416) and healthcare providers (N = 168) providing prenatal care and/or labor/delivery services was conducted in Argentina (2 public, 2 private hospitals). Proportion of pregnant women and providers willing to participate in each design and reasons for not participating were determined.ResultsFew women (< 15%) or professionals (33.3%) would participate in an RCT, though more would participate in PCTs (88% women; 65.9% professionals) or PRPPTs (44.4% public, 63.4% private sector women; 44.0% professionals). However, most women would choose vaginal delivery in the PCT and PRPPT (> 85%). Believing randomization unacceptable (RCT, PRPPT) and desiring choice of delivery mode (RCT) were women’s reasons for not participating. For providers, commonly cited reasons for not participating included unacceptability of performing CS without medical indication, difficulty obtaining informed consent, discomfort enrolling patients (all designs), and violating women’s right to choose (RCT).Conclusions for PracticeImportant limitations were found for each trial design evaluated. The necessity of stronger evidence regarding delivery mode in low-risk women suggests consideration of additional designs, such as a rigorously designed cohort study or an RCT within an obstetric population with equivocal CS indications. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Maternal and Child Health Journal Springer Journals

Feasibility of Conducting a Trial Assessing Benefits and Risks of Planned Caesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/feasibility-of-conducting-a-trial-assessing-benefits-and-risks-of-LXyfVse7HB

References (46)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
ISSN
1092-7875
eISSN
1573-6628
DOI
10.1007/s10995-020-03073-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IntroductionThough interest is growing for trials comparing planned delivery mode (vaginal delivery [VD]; cesarean section [CS]) in low-risk nulliparous women, appropriate study design is unclear. Our objective was to assess feasibility of three designs (preference trial [PCT], randomized controlled trial [RCT], partially randomized patient preference trial [PRPPT]) for a trial comparing planned delivery mode in low-risk women.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of low-risk, nulliparous pregnant women (N = 416) and healthcare providers (N = 168) providing prenatal care and/or labor/delivery services was conducted in Argentina (2 public, 2 private hospitals). Proportion of pregnant women and providers willing to participate in each design and reasons for not participating were determined.ResultsFew women (< 15%) or professionals (33.3%) would participate in an RCT, though more would participate in PCTs (88% women; 65.9% professionals) or PRPPTs (44.4% public, 63.4% private sector women; 44.0% professionals). However, most women would choose vaginal delivery in the PCT and PRPPT (> 85%). Believing randomization unacceptable (RCT, PRPPT) and desiring choice of delivery mode (RCT) were women’s reasons for not participating. For providers, commonly cited reasons for not participating included unacceptability of performing CS without medical indication, difficulty obtaining informed consent, discomfort enrolling patients (all designs), and violating women’s right to choose (RCT).Conclusions for PracticeImportant limitations were found for each trial design evaluated. The necessity of stronger evidence regarding delivery mode in low-risk women suggests consideration of additional designs, such as a rigorously designed cohort study or an RCT within an obstetric population with equivocal CS indications.

Journal

Maternal and Child Health JournalSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 3, 2021

There are no references for this article.