Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess women’s preferences for vaginal versus cesarean delivery in four contexts: prior cesarean, twins, breech presentation, and absent indication for cesarean.
STUDY DESIGN
Cross-sectional study of pregnant women at 24-40 weeks gestation. After assessing stated preferences for vaginal or cesarean delivery, we used the standard gamble metric to measure the strength of these preferences and the time tradeoff metric to determine how women value the potential processes and outcomes associated with these two delivery approaches.
RESULTS
Among the 240 participants, 90.8% had a stated preference for vaginal delivery. Across the four contexts, these women indicated that, on average, they would accept a 59-75% chance of an attempted vaginal birth ending in a cesarean before choosing a planned cesarean, indicating strong preferences for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery. Variations in preferences for labor processes emerged. While uncomplicated labor ending in vaginal birth was assigned mean utilities of 0.993 or higher (on a 0-to-1 scale with higher scores indicating more preferred outcomes), the need for oxytocin, antibiotics, or operative vaginal delivery resulted in lower mean scores, comparable to those assigned to uncomplicated cesarean delivery. Substantially lower scores (ranging from 0.432 to 0.598) were obtained for scenarios ending in severe maternal or neonatal morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS
While most women expressed strong preferences for vaginal delivery, their preferences regarding interventions frequently employed to achieve that goal varied. These data underscore the importance of educating patients about the process of labor and delivery to facilitate incorporation of informed patient preferences in shared decision making regarding delivery approach.
Keywords: mode of delivery, standard gamble, time trade off, patient preferences, shared decision making
INTRODUCTION
Determining the optimal delivery approach for each pregnant woman is critical to providing high-quality, patient-centered care in obstetrics. Although vaginal delivery remains the most common delivery mode, the overall cesarean rate reached 32.8% in 2010, including 26.4% of low-risk nulliparous women and 89.9% of low-risk women with a prior cesarean delivery.1,2 The morbidity associated with this cesarean epidemic is profound, and as a result, reducing cesarean deliveries is a goal of numerous professional organizations and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1,3,4 Yet, while studies among pregnant or postpartum women demonstrate a majority prefer vaginal delivery,5-10 and the strength of this preference has been associated with increased likelihood of achieving this goal,11 recent clinical guidelines aimed at reducing the cesarean rate fail to mention inclusion of patient preferences in delivery mode counseling or planning.4
The model of shared decision making, in which decisions are informed by the best evidence available, weighted according to the specific characteristics and values of the patients, and made in collaboration between patients and health care providers,12,13 has been advocated for some clinical scenarios in obstetrics; however, defining the optimal way to incorporate patient preferences in delivery decisions remains challenging.14,15 While women often state a desire to be included in the process of mode-of-delivery decision making,16 the extent to which patient preferences should be incorporated remains a matter of debate. As shared decision making and reduction of the cesarean delivery rate are both important goals, and the strength of a woman’s preference for vaginal delivery has an impact on likelihood of vaginal birth,11 perhaps more explicit incorporation of patient preferences would be beneficial. However, to do so requires a better understanding of how women view planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery, including how strongly they prefer one delivery mode over the other, how they perceive potential labor interventions facilitating vaginal birth, and how they value potential outcomes of the two delivery approaches.
To date, most mode-of-delivery preference studies have simply asked women whether they would prefer vaginal or cesarean delivery, without exploring the strength of these preferences and how women feel about potential outcomes of decisions to undergo planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery. Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive study of mode-of-delivery preferences among a diverse population of women. To do so, we assessed stated preferences for vaginal versus cesarean delivery, the strength of these delivery mode preferences, and preferences (known as utilities) for potential interventions associated with and outcomes of planned vaginal versus planned cesarean deliveries in four clinical contexts: prior cesarean delivery; twins; breech presentation; and absent medical indication for cesarean.15
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The “Mode of Delivery Preferences among Diverse Populations of Women” study was conducted at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), between 2008 and 2014. This report describes the primary outcomes of this study. Methods have been described elsewhere.11,17 In brief, women receiving prenatal care at UCSF were sent letters describing the study. Women who opted in or who did not return the postage-paid response card were contacted to assess eligibility and interest. Inclusion criteria included being 24-40 weeks pregnant with a singleton or twin gestation and having the ability to complete an English-language interview. Exclusion criteria included inability to complete a face-to-face interview, having triplets or higher-order multiple gestation, or inability to speak English. Women were not excluded on the basis of medical comorbidities or number of prior cesarean deliveries. Participation consisted of one face-to-face interview that included a sociodemographic and attitudinal questionnaire and a series of preference elicitation exercises specific to the participant’s clinical context. All participants received a $40 gift card. This study was approved by the UCSF Committee on Human Research. All participants provided written consent.
We assessed three types of mode-of-delivery preferences using “ELICIT,” a computerized preference elicitation tool previously developed by our group.18 The first type was a stated preference, for which we simply asked the participant “if you could choose, which type of delivery would you want to have?” with response options of “definitely a vaginal birth,” “probably a vaginal birth,” “probably a cesarean delivery” and “definitely a cesarean delivery.” The second type focused on the strength of the stated preference (focusing on those preferring vaginal delivery), which we assessed using the standard gamble metric (see explanation below).19 Finally, because planned vaginal and planned cesarean delivery can involve various interventions and outcomes, such as induction of labor, use of antibiotics for chorioamnionitis, operative vaginal delivery, and surgical complications, the third type of preference we measured focused on the value women attach to experiencing these interventions and outcomes. These utilities were measured using the time tradeoff metric (see explanation below).19,20 To measure the strength of preference for vaginal delivery among women who preferred this delivery mode, we opted to use a standard gamble exercise that reflected a simplified choice a woman might realistically face in thinking through whether to opt for a planned vaginal versus a planned cesarean delivery. To gain an understanding of how all the participants, regardless of their preferred delivery mode, felt about many of other the potential outcomes of these two delivery approaches, we used the time tradeoff. This is a metric was developed specifically for use in health care evaluations,21 and we and others have found to be more easily comprehended by study participants, particularly when a large number of scenarios, without a clear “worst case,” must be assessed.
Participants were assigned to one of four preference elicitation protocols depending on their clinical context. After identifying their preferred delivery mode, women preferring vaginal delivery were presented with a choice between certainty of an uncomplicated planned cesarean delivery (the intermediately ranked outcome) or a gamble between a specified probability of an uneventful, spontaneous vaginal birth with no adverse outcomes (the ideal outcome) and the complementary probability of having the attempted vaginal birth end in a cesarean delivery (the undesired outcome for women preferring vaginal delivery).19 For this assessment, the ideal, intermediate, and undesired outcomes were assigned and standardized for all women identifying vaginal delivery as their preferred delivery mode. The probability of the gamble was varied until the woman was indifferent between the two choices, i.e., until the participant found the gamble between the ideal and undesired outcomes to be equivalent to certainty of the intermediate outcome. The “strength-of-preference” score was calculated at this indifference point. In theory, a woman strongly preferring vaginal delivery would choose the gamble even with a high chance of ending in a cesarean delivery, whereas a woman with a weaker preference would only choose the gamble if the likelihood of a cesarean delivery was relatively low. For example, if a woman had a stated preference for vaginal delivery, but indicated she would opt for a planned cesarean if the chance labor would end in a cesarean was only 10%, her strength-of-preference score would be 0.10, indicating a weak preference for vaginal delivery. But if she would only opt for a planned cesarean if her chance of cesarean was as high as 90%, her strength-of-preference score for vaginal delivery would be 0.90, indicating a strong preference for vaginal birth.
All participants then completed a series of time tradeoff exercises to generate utilities for potential labor interventions and potential outcomes of planned delivery approaches specific to their clinical context. A similar scale was used regardless of preferred delivery mode.19,20 The narratives for each clinical context were developed after a qualitative analysis of six focus groups; these narratives then underwent an iterative process of feedback and revision based on participant responses and expert opinion to develop the complete set of scenarios. For each clinical scenario, the participant was presented with a choice between living her full life expectancy experiencing each outcome versus living a shorter life expectancy with her preferred delivery mode without interventions or complications. The life expectancy was then varied until the participant reached her indifference point. In this case a score of 0 resulted if the respondent indicated she would give up her entire lifetime to avoid the scenario being assessed, whereas a score of 1 resulted if she indicated she would not give up any time (meaning it is nearly equivalent to her ideal outcome; see Appendix for outcome descriptions by protocol). Participants in the prior cesarean and breech presentation contexts additionally evaluated a range of maternal and neonatal morbidity outcomes related to uterine rupture and head entrapment, respectively, as these are central components of counseling for women considering these options.
The primary analyses consisted of determining the percent of women with stated preferences for one delivery mode over the other in each clinical context, calculating the mean strength-of-preference score for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery among those who had a stated preference for vaginal delivery in each clinical context, and calculating the mean time tradeoff utilities for the potential interventions and outcomes of planned vaginal versus planned cesarean for the entire sample of women in each of the four protocol groups, using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
In this population of 240 women, the mean age was 33.0 (SD ±6.0) and approximately half (45%) were nulliparous (Table 1). Approximately 23% had a prior cesarean delivery (38 with one prior, 10 with two prior, and 2 with three prior) and 36% had a prior vaginal delivery. The population was racially/ethnically diverse (56% white, 21% African American, 14% Asian/Asian American and 9% Latina) and well-educated (65% college graduates). Overall, 90.8% of the participants had a stated preference for vaginal delivery, which varied from 83% of women with a prior cesarean delivery to 93% of the women without a medical indication for a cesarean delivery (Table 2). On average, these women strongly preferred vaginal delivery, as indicated by strength-of-preference scores ranging from a mean of 0.59 for women with a prior cesarean (suggesting they would accept a 59% chance of their planned vaginal birth after cesarean ending in cesarean before opting for a planned repeat cesarean) to 0.75 for women without an indication for cesarean delivery (suggesting they would accept a 75% chance of their attempted vaginal delivery ending in a cesarean before choosing a planned cesarean).
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study population
| Sociodemographic characteristics | N (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Age (mean, ±SD) | 33.0 (±6.0) |
|
| |
| Race/ethnicity | |
| African American | 49 (20.5%) |
| Asian/Asian American | 34 (14.2%) |
| Caucasian | 133 (55.6%) |
| Latina | 21 (8.8%) |
| Native American/Other | 3 (1.3%) |
|
| |
| College graduate | 155 (64.9%) |
|
| |
| Employed | 140 (58.6%) |
|
| |
| Household income >$100,000 | 107 (45.9%) |
|
| |
| Married or living with partner | 205 (85.4%) |
|
| |
| Born in the United States | 193 (80.4%) |
|
| |
| Clinical characteristics | |
|
| |
| Nulliparous | 109 (45.4%) |
|
| |
| Prior cesarean delivery | 54 (22.5%) |
|
| |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI (mean, ±SD) | 26.3 (±5.9) |
|
| |
| Clinical context* | |
| Prior cesarean delivery | 41 (17.1%) |
| Twins | 50 (20.8%) |
| Breech presentation | 33 (13.8%) |
| Absent medical indication for cesarean | 116 (48.3%) |
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index
Participants were recruited to participate in one of four protocols that presented hypothetical outcomes of planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery specific to their clinical context: prior cesarean delivery, current twin gestation, breech presentation, or absent medical indication for cesarean delivery. Note that women were recruited for participation in a specific clinical context but may have had clinical histories making them eligible for participation in more than one context. For example, of the 54 women with prior cesarean deliveries, 41 participated in the prior cesarean delivery protocol, 4 in the twins protocol, 4 in the breech presentation protocol, and 5 in the absent medical indication protocol. All participants in the same protocol were provided the same set of clinical scenarios to evaluate, regardless of actual number of prior cesarean deliveries they had undergone.
Table 2.
Stated preference for vaginal delivery and strength of this preference
| Prior Cesarean (n=41) | Twins (n=50) | Breech (n=33) | Absent Medical Indication (n=116) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stated preference for vaginal delivery (n, %) | 34 (82.9%) | 44 (88.0%) | 29 (87.9%) | 111 (93.4%) |
| Strength of preference for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery (mean, ± SD)* | 0.592 ±0.369 | 0.634 ±0.266 | 0.596 ±0.342 | 0.749 ±0.279 |
SD, standard deviation
Strength-of-preference score was generated using the standard gamble method, for participants with a stated preference for vaginal delivery. Participants were presented with the option of an uncomplicated scheduled cesarean delivery versus a gamble between a specified probability of an uneventful vaginal birth with no adverse outcomes to the mother or neonate (the ideal outcome) and the complementary probability of having the attempted vaginal birth end in a cesarean delivery (the undesirable outcome). Scores range from 0 (weakest preference for vaginal delivery) to 1 (strongest preference for vaginal delivery).
We also found that, regardless of clinical context, participants assigned high preference scores (utilities) to having a planned vaginal delivery without interventions that concluded with a vaginal birth without complications, ranging from a mean of 0.993 for women carrying twins to 0.998 for women with breech presentations or a prior cesarean (Table 3). We observed more variation in the scores assigned to a planned cesarean delivery ending with a cesarean birth and no complications, ranging from 0.933 among participants carrying twins to 0.974 among participants in the prior cesarean group. Planned vaginal delivery ending in cesarean had higher mean utilities than operative vaginal delivery in all contexts except for breech presentation, ranging from 0.934 to 0.973 for planned vaginal delivery ending in cesarean delivery, and from 0.906 to 0.959 for operative vaginal delivery. Among women carrying twins, experiencing a combined delivery (vaginal delivery for the presenting twin followed by a cesarean delivery for the second twin) received a lower mean utility (0.918) than scenarios with uncomplicated cesarean delivery for both twins, whereas experiencing a vertex vaginal delivery of the presenting twin followed by breech extraction of the second twin received a utility (0.936) similar to planned or unplanned uncomplicated cesarean delivery of both twins. Lower scores indicate a greater number of years women would be willing to give up from her projected lifespan in order to achieve their desired outcome; for example, for woman with a lifespan of 80 years, a score of 0.925 (=(80-6)/80) indicates she would give up 6 years of life in order to avoid the undesirable outcome.
Table 3.
Mean time tradeoff utilities for potential outcomes of planned vaginal and planned cesarean delivery*
| Scenario† | Prior Cesarean n=41 mean (SD) | Twins n=50 mean (SD) | Breech n=33 mean (SD) | Absent Medical Indication n=116 mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications‡ | 0.998 (±0.007) | 0.993 (±0.024) | 0.998 (±0.007) | 0.997 (±0.025) |
| Planned VD with induction at 39 weeks, ending in VD | 0.986 (±0.041) | 0.975 (±0.060) | ||
| Planned VD with augmentation using oxytocin, ending in VD | 0.979 (±0.061) | 0.958 (±0.113) | ||
| Planned VD with induction at 41 weeks, ending in CD | 0.976 (±0.045) | 0.952 (±0.088) | ||
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications | 0.974 (±0.070) | 0.933 (±0.134) | 0.966 (±0.047) | 0.957 (±0.090) |
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications | 0.973 (±0.050) | 0.934 (±0.112) | 0.950 (±0.067) | 0.961 (±0.069) |
| Planned VD with antibiotic administration during labor, ending in VD | 0.972 (±0.064) | 0.959 (±0.110) | ||
| Planned VD ending in VD with minor neonatal complications§ | 0.952 (±0.076) | 0.929 (±0.135) | ||
| Planned VD ending in vacuum or forceps-assisted VD | 0.946 (±0.092) | 0.906 (±0.134) | 0.953 (±0.055) | 0.959 (±0.097) |
| Planned VD ending in VD with 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration | 0.944 (±0.084) | 0.952 (±0.092) | ||
| Planned VD with cascade of interventions ending in VD** | 0.939 (±0.096) | 0.931 (±0.126) | ||
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications | 0.931 (±0.086) | 0.874 (±0.208) | 0.931 (±0.099) | 0.923 (±0.108) |
| Planned VD ending in vertex VD of twin A and breech extraction of twin B | 0.936 (±0.091) | |||
| Planned VD ending in combined delivery (VD twin A and CD twin B) | 0.918 (±0.144) |
SD, standard deviation; VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
Utilities are presented in order from highest to lowest scores for the prior cesarean context. Mean utilities are presented for both women who preferred CD and who preferred VD, with a similar scale regardless of preference. Women who preferred VD assigned a score of 1 to the “Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications” scenario. Women who preferred CD assigned a score of 1 to the “Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications” scenario. Higher scores indicate the scenario is similar to the preferred delivery mode. Lower scores indicate a stronger desire to avoid the scenario.
See Appendix for details of the clinical scenarios.
For twins, vertex deliveries of both twin A and B. For breech context, vaginal breech delivery.
Delayed neonatal hospital discharge without long-term complications.
Arrested labor, oxytocin augmentation, chorioamnionitis, antibiotic administration, prolonged second stage, operative vaginal delivery, third or fourth degree perineal laceration
Our participants reported decrements in utility associated with labor interventions and short-term complications. For example, women with a prior cesarean or no indication for cesarean assigned scores of 0.986 and 0.975, respectively, to induction at 39 weeks ending in vaginal delivery, and slightly lower scores of 0.979 and 0.958 to augmentation of spontaneous labor with oxytocin resulting in a vaginal birth. Planned vaginal delivery requiring antibiotic administration for chorioamnionitis and ending with vaginal delivery was valued similarly to planned vaginal delivery with induction at 41 weeks that ended in a cesarean delivery. And vaginal deliveries that resulted in major perineal lacerations received lower utilities for both groups (0.944 for prior cesarean; 0.952 absent medical indication) than either planned or unplanned uncomplicated cesarean delivery.
As expected, scenarios including serious maternal and/or neonatal complications were assigned substantially lower scores (Table 4). In the prior cesarean group, uterine rupture resulting in severe infant complications or infant death received the lowest utility scores (from 0.506 to 0.598), whereas deliveries ending in maternal complications but no infant complications received higher utilities. Among women with breech presentations, a vaginal breech delivery with head entrapment without long-term sequelae received a mean utility of 0.952, whereas head entrapment scenarios requiring further interventions and/or resulting in long-term sequelae had substantially lower scores. Planned vaginal breech delivery with head entrapment resulting in neonatal death received the lowest mean score (0.432), indicating participants would give up over half of their life expectancy to avoid this devastating outcome.
Table 4.
Mean time tradeoff utilities for rare but serious maternal and neonatal outcomes of planned vaginal delivery
| Scenario | Prior Cesarean n=41 mean (SD) | Breech n=33 mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture, no infant complications | 0.954 (±0.076) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with surgical complications, no infant complications | 0.906 (±0.111) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy, no infant complications | 0.878 (±0.125) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and severe infant complication | 0.598 (±0.271) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with severe infant complication | 0.595 (±0.226) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and infant death | 0.523 (±0.307) | |
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with infant death | 0.506 (±0.298) | |
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, no infant complications | 0.952 (±0.069) | |
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with forceps and brachial plexus injury | 0.924 (±0.108) | |
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, Duhrssen incisions, no infant complications | 0.914 (±0.109) | |
| Planned breech CD ending in CD with hysterectomy, no infant complications | 0.865 (±0.143) | |
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, cerebral palsy | 0.510 (±0.284) | |
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, infant death | 0.432 (±0.343) |
SD, standard deviation; VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
COMMENT
We measured preferences for planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery in the context of prior cesarean, twins, breech presentation, and absent medical indication for cesarean, finding that in all of them, the majority of women highly value vaginal delivery. We also identified substantial variation in preferences for interventions that are often employed during labor to help achieve a vaginal delivery. Women in our study assigned relatively low utilities to common labor interventions as well as less frequent minor and major morbidities of planned vaginal delivery. Further, the variation in and decrements for utilities for common interventions and morbidities were similar across clinical contexts, demonstrating similar preferences regardless of clinical history. These findings highlight the importance of improved communication between patients and providers regarding processes that may occur during labor and delivery, to help create realistic expectations and allow the opportunity for elicitation of informed patient preferences. The results of our three-level approach to preference assessment emphasize the need to ensure women have meaningful opportunities not only to attempt vaginal delivery in various contexts, but to receive patient-centered information and participate in shared decision making about labor and delivery.
Our finding that women would accept a 59 – 75% chance of their attempted vaginal birth ending in a cesarean delivery before opting for a planned cesarean delivery underscores the intensity of the preference for vaginal delivery in this population. However, the utilities for labor processes and outcomes reveal this preference to be nuanced. While in the context of natural labor the mean strength-of-preference scores for spontaneous, uncomplicated vaginal delivery suggest a high risk tolerance for unplanned cesarean, the full range of utilities assessed suggests women are less accepting of labor requiring interventions, even when those interventions are consistent with the goal of vaginal birth. Moreover, these utilities suggested participants viewed some routine labor interventions as equivalent to uncomplicated cesarean deliveries, an unexpected finding given the strength of preference for vaginal delivery. For example, the finding that an uncomplicated operative vaginal delivery received similar utilities to vaginal delivery with major perineal laceration and lower utilities than cesarean delivery suggests participants may have a different understanding than clinicians would anticipate of the risks and benefits of an uncomplicated operative vaginal delivery as compared to other outcomes. Alternatively, it may mean that while they would like to have a vaginal delivery, the prospect of a major laceration is more worrisome to them than the prospect of a cesarean delivery. These data emphasize the importance of patient education and counseling to improve concordance between patient and provider expectations regarding indications for and potential benefits of labor interventions, as well as the potential morbidity of cesarean delivery.
Appropriate patient education that enables women to place labor interventions and potential maternal and neonatal outcomes in context is critical to ensuring informed patient choices. In counseling women about labor, providers must explain that many interventions facilitate the shared goal of achieving vaginal delivery. Our work suggests education about goals for birth should extend beyond simply asking what type of birth a woman hopes to achieve, but also should include a discussion of how common labor interventions may be utilized to achieve that goal. Such framing also allows providers the opportunity to discuss the rarity of major maternal or neonatal complications, which women in our study strongly desired to avoid. While the women in our study reported that they would give up nearly half of their remaining lifespan to avoid outcomes such as neonatal death, such events are exceedingly rare. The absolute risk of term neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is 0.46 per 1000 women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean;22 for women with breech presentations, long-term data show planned cesarean is not associated with a reduction in risk of death or neurodevelopmental delay compared to planned vaginal delivery.23,24 Similarly, a recent landmark trial of women with a cephalic presenting twin demonstrated no differences in composite perinatal morbidity and mortality between women randomized to planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery.25 Women in these clinical scenarios are commonly counseled about rare adverse outcomes and, while women and providers are strongly motivated to avoid these unlikely but devastating events, the appropriate presentation of the likelihood of these outcomes is crucial to allow women to place them in context with other tradeoffs inherent to delivery decisions. Our findings underscore the need for research investigating optimal counseling techniques that promote fully informed decisions while avoiding overweighting low probability events.
In addition to improving the quality of obstetric care, enhanced patient education and greater focus on patient preferences could potentially contribute to reducing the cesarean rate. Despite expressed preferences for vaginal birth, the vast majority of U.S. women with prior cesarean(s), twins, and breech do not undergo planned vaginal delivery.3,4,26 Provider and system factors contribute to delivery decisions and are potential points of intervention to reduce the cesarean rate.3 Metz et al, for example, have suggested provider factors are a potentially significant reason for disparities in rates of trial of labor after cesarean among women who are good candidates.27 Similarly, Bernstein et al found when women with a prior cesarean perceived their provider to have a preference, they were more likely to choose their perceived provider-preferred delivery mode.28 Patient preferences should be considered along with safety and medical capacity, and providers have a role in offering balanced counseling incorporating realistic framing of risks and benefits. This process may first and foremost help patients make medically appropriate decisions in alignment with their goals, which may ultimately reduce the cesarean delivery rate.
This study is not without limitations. First, this population was limited to English-speaking women within the San Francisco Bay Area receiving care at an academic medical center with multiple resources available. Trial of labor after cesarean, singleton vaginal breech deliveries, and vaginal delivery of a non-vertex second twin were offered with careful attention to patient selection. Women may have chosen this site for delivery based on these resources and, as a result, their preferences may not be generalizable. In addition, while the population was ethnically and racially diverse, they reported high educational attainment and income. However, a significant strength of this study is that it is one of the first to study the complexity of mode-of-delivery preferences in several clinical contexts. The use of both standard gamble and time tradeoff methods of preference elicitation allowed nuanced exploration of women’s values for birth processes and outcomes, and the measurement of these preferences in four differing clinical contexts enabled us to assess how women’s preferences differ (or remain the same) in these contexts.
In this racially/ethnically diverse population of high income, highly educated women, our work suggests that most women highly value uncomplicated vaginal birth but that preferences for obstetric interventions facilitating vaginal delivery vary substantially. These data highlight the importance of preparing patients for birth by providing clear information, appropriately contextualized risk education, and ongoing opportunities for communication. Providers must offer balanced patient counseling that frames rare adverse events as rare and manages patient expectations about labor processes. Shared decision making encouraging fully informed patient preferences is critical to achieving patient-centered care in obstetrics.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the members of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Risk Research Group (Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MD, MS; Margaret O’Little, PhD; Lisa Harris, MD, MPH; Rebecca Kukla, PhD; Elizabeth Armstrong, PhD, MPP; and Lisa Mitchell, PhD) for their contributions to the conceptualization and design of this study.
FUNDING: This project was supported in part by the UCSF Resource Allocation Program funded by the National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health, the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UCSF-CTSI grant number UL1 RR024131 and UCSF-CTSI grant number UL1 TR000004, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Physician Faculty Scholars Program RWJF-61535.
APPENDIX
Summary of all clinical scenarios
| Scenario | Clinical context | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior Cesarean | Twins | Breech | Absent Medical Indication | |
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications | X | X | X | X |
| Planned VD with induction, ending in VD | X | X | ||
| Planned VD with augmentation using oxytocin, ending in VD | X | X | ||
| Planned VD with induction, ending in CD | X | X | ||
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications | X | X | X | X |
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications | X | X | X | X |
| Planned VD with antibiotic administration during labor, ending in VD | X | X | ||
| Planned VD ending in VD with minor neonatal complications | X | X | ||
| Planned VD ending in vacuum-or forceps-assisted VD | X | X | X | X |
| Planned VD ending in VD with 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration | X | X | ||
| Planned VD with cascade of interventions ending in VD | X | X | ||
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications | X | X | X | X |
| Planned VD ending in vertex VD of twin A and breech extraction of twin B | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in combined delivery (VD twin A and CD twin B) | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with surgical complications, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and severe infant complication | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with severe infant complication | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and infant death | X | |||
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with infant death | X | |||
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with forceps and brachial plexus injury | X | |||
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, Duhrssen incisions, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned breech CD ending in CD with hysterectomy, no infant complications | X | |||
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, cerebral palsy | X | |||
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, infant death | X | |||
VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
| Prior Cesarean Clinical Scenarios | |
|---|---|
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications |
|
| Planned VD with induction, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD with augmentation using oxytocin, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD with induction, ending in CD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD with antibiotic administration during labor, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD ending in VD with minor neonatal complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in vacuum or forceps-assisted VD |
|
| Planned VD ending in VD with 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration |
|
| Planned VD with cascade of interventions ending in VD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture, no infant complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with surgical complications, no infant complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy, no infant complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and severe infant complication |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with severe infant complication |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with hysterectomy and infant death |
|
| Planned VD ending in uterine rupture with infant death |
|
VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
| Twins Clinical Scenarios | |
|---|---|
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in vacuum or forceps-assisted VD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in vertex VD of twin A and breech extraction of twin B |
|
| Planned VD ending in combined delivery (VD twin A and CD twin B) |
|
VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
| Breech Clinical Scenarios | |
|---|---|
| Introduction to all scenarios |
|
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in vacuum or forceps-assisted VD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications |
|
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, no infant complications |
|
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with forceps and brachial plexus injury |
|
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, Duhrssen incisions, no infant complications |
|
| Planned breech CD ending in CD with hysterectomy, no infant complications |
|
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, cerebral palsy |
|
| Planned breech VD ending in breech VD with head entrapment, infant death |
|
VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
| Absent Medical Indication Clinical Scenarios | |
|---|---|
| Planned VD ending in VD, no interventions or complications |
|
| Planned VD with induction, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD with augmentation using oxytocin, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD with induction, ending in CD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in CD, no surgical complications |
|
| Planned VD with antibiotic administration during labor, ending in VD |
|
| Planned VD ending in VD with minor neonatal complications |
|
| Planned VD ending in vacuum or forceps-assisted VD |
|
| Planned VD ending in VD with 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration |
|
| Planned VD with cascade of interventions ending in VD |
|
| Planned CD ending in CD with surgical complications |
|
VD, vaginal delivery; CD, cesarean delivery
Footnotes
Components of this work were presented as a poster abstract on February 7, 2014, at the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine 34th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA (Abstract 403) and as an oral abstract at the Society for Medical Decision Making 31st Annual Meeting in Hollywood, CA, on October 20, 2009.
DISCLOSURE: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.United States Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: 2013. Healthy People 2020: Maternal, Infant and Child Health. www.healthypeople.gov. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hamilton B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Strobino D, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-11. Pediatrics. 2013;131:548–58. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: Summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1181–93. doi: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3182704880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;123:693–711. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000444441.04111.1d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Liu N, Mazzoni A, Zamberlin N, et al. Preferences for mode of delivery in nulliparous Argentinean women: a qualitative study. Reprod Health. 2013;10:1–7. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Angeja A, Washington A, Vargas J, Gomez R, Rojas I, Caughey A. Chilean women’s preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG. 2006;113:1253–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01069.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Scotland G, McNamee P, Cheyne H, Hundley V, Barnett C. Women’s preferences for aspects of labor management: results from a discrete choice experiment. Birth. 2011;38:36–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00447.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Emmett C, Montgomery A, Murphy D for the DiAMOND Study Group. Preferences for mode of delivery after previous cesarean section: what do women want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes? Health Expect. 2011;14:397–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00635.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Emmett C, Shaw A, Montgomery A, Murphy D for the DiAMOND Study Group. Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous cesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006;113:1438–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01112.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fuglenes D, Aas E, Botten G, Oian P, Kristiansen I. Maternal preference for cesarean delivery: do women get what they want? Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:252–60. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182605b1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wu E, Kaimal A, Houston K, Yee LM, Nakagawa S, Kuppermann M. Strength of preference for vaginal birth as a predictor of delivery mode among women who attempt vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.11.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Stewart M, Brown J, Weston W, McWhinney I, McWilliam C, Freeman T. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. London: Sage Publications; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Legare F, O’Connor A, Graham I, et al. Supporting patients facing difficult health care decisions: use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Can Fam Physician. 2006;52 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kaimal A, Kuppermann M. Decision making for primary cesarean delivery: The role of patient and provider preferences. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36:384–9. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2012.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Little MO, Lyerly AD, Mitchell LM, et al. Mode of delivery: Toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:913–8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181888fd8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Moffat M, Bell J, Porter M, et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: a qualitative study. BJOG. 2007;114:86–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01154.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yee LM, Kaimal A, Nakagawa S, Houston K, Kuppermann M. Predictors of postpartum sexual activity and function in a diverse population of women. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2013;58:654–61. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Wu J, Fulton R, Amundsen C, Knight S, Kuppermann M. Patient preferences for different severities of and treatments for overactive bladder. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:184–9. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318223c8ad. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2005;14:39–53. doi: 10.1002/hec.895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Landon M, Hauth J, Leveno K, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2581–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hannah M, Hannah W, Hewson S, et al. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Whyte H, Hannah M, Saigal S, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:864–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1295–305. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1095–101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182318651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, Jackson M, Holmgren C, Esplin S. How do good candidates for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) who undergo elective repeat cesarean differ from those who choose TOLAC? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013;208:458.e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bernstein SN, Matalon-Grazi S, Rosenn B. Trial of labor versus repeat cesarean: are patients making an informed decision? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:204.e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
