title: Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support decision-making about vaginal birth after a caesarean birth.Secondary objectives are to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013), Current Controlled Trials (22 July 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (22 July 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also conducted citation searches of included studies to identify possible concurrent qualitative studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials with reported data of any intervention designed to support pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth make decisions about their options for birth. Studies using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form only would have been eligible for inclusion if data were able to be extracted.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria and carried out data extraction and quality assessment of studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors of included trials for additional information. All included interventions were classified as independent, shared or mediated decision supports. Consensus was obtained for classifications. Verification of the final list of included studies was undertaken by three review authors.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Three randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters.We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%).There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women).More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women).Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met.Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia. d.horey@latrobe.edu.au.
authors.forename: Dell
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Horey
authors.forename: Michelle
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kealy
authors.forename: Mary-Ann
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Davey
authors.forename: Rhonda
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Small
authors.forename: Caroline A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Crowther
mesh_terms: D017604:Cesarean Section, Repeat / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003657:Decision Making; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016064:Vaginal Birth after Cesarean / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jan;86(1):9-18
references.pmid: 21474265
references.citation: BJOG. 2009 Jun;116(7):896-905
references.pmid: 19385964
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001192
references.pmid: 22427749
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Sep;199(3):224-31
references.pmid: 18511018
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):453-63
references.pmid: 20133502
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(1):1-156
references.pmid: 10350446
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD004350
references.pmid: 17054201
references.citation: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2012 Sep-Oct;41(5):583-98
references.pmid: 22822788
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(12):1968-78
references.pmid: 22475401
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):258-66
references.pmid: 20654776
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989 Aug;57(4):484-7
references.pmid: 2768607
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003765
references.pmid: 15106218
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD007482
references.pmid: 20091635
references.citation: Birth. 2005 Dec;32(4):252-61
references.pmid: 16336366
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):272-80
references.pmid: 20654778
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Feb;65(2):189-96
references.pmid: 16956742
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1990;31(2):203-10
references.pmid: 2389156
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2011 Dec 21;1(2):e000261
references.pmid: 22189349
references.citation: NCHS Data Brief. 2010 Mar;(35):1-8
references.pmid: 20334736
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD001431
references.pmid: 21975733
references.citation: BMJ. 2007 Jun 23;334(7607):1305
references.pmid: 17540908
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 30;(7):CD010041
references.pmid: 23897547
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;98(5 Pt 1):820-6
references.pmid: 11704175
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):415-424.e3
references.pmid: 19008073
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Feb;176(2):419-25
references.pmid: 9065192
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD003577
references.pmid: 12804476
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2009 Nov 18;4:75
references.pmid: 19922647
references.citation: Health Expect. 2007 Jun;10(2):161-72
references.pmid: 17524009
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):357-64
references.pmid: 20171821
references.citation: Birth. 2010 Mar;37(1):3-10
references.pmid: 20402716
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD006914
references.pmid: 19370660
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Apr;71(1):125-35
references.pmid: 18242040
references.citation: BJOG. 2009 Jun;116(7):906-14
references.pmid: 19522794
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):249-57
references.pmid: 20654775
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):244-8
references.pmid: 20654774
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003858
references.pmid: 14974041
references.citation: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2004 Dec 10;4(1):25
references.pmid: 15588324
references.citation: JAMA. 1961 Dec 23;178:1128-31
references.pmid: 14476172
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Oct;44(5):387-91
references.pmid: 15387856
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2010 Nov-Dec;30(6):701-11
references.pmid: 21088131
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2002 Oct;28(5):240-4
references.pmid: 12428692
references.citation: Clin Perinatol. 2011 Jun;38(2):179-92
references.pmid: 21645788
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Mar;52(3):307-13
references.pmid: 14998601
references.citation: Trials. 2015 Nov 30;16:542
references.pmid: 26620402
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD005528
references.pmid: 21678348
references.citation: Birth. 2007 Mar;34(1):65-79
references.pmid: 17324181
references.citation: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Aug 21;12:85
references.pmid: 22909230
references.citation: Health Expect. 2011 Dec;14(4):397-404
references.pmid: 20860784
references.citation: BJOG. 2013 Feb;120(3):257-66
references.pmid: 23145991
references.citation: BJOG. 2006 Dec;113(12):1438-45
references.pmid: 17081180
references.citation: J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):565-74
references.pmid: 20698918
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Dec;90(6):907-10
references.pmid: 9397100
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Oct;34(5):331-6
references.pmid: 20869549
references.citation: Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):281-92
references.pmid: 20654779
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 2011 Aug;67(8):1662-76
references.pmid: 21535091