Montgomery Alan A, Emmett Clare L, Fahey Tom, Jones Claire, Ricketts Ian, Patel Roshni R, Peters Tim J, Murphy Deirdre J
Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2AA.
BMJ. 2007 Jun 23;334(7607):1305. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55. Epub 2007 May 31.
To determine the effects of two computer based decision aids on decisional conflict and mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous caesarean section.
Randomised trial, conducted from May 2004 to August 2006.
Four maternity units in south west England, and Scotland.
742 pregnant women with one previous lower segment caesarean section and delivery expected at >or=37 weeks. Non-English speakers were excluded.
Usual care: standard care given by obstetric and midwifery staff. Information programme: women navigated through descriptions and probabilities of clinical outcomes for mother and baby associated with planned vaginal birth, elective caesarean section, and emergency caesarean section. Decision analysis: mode of delivery was recommended based on utility assessments performed by the woman combined with probabilities of clinical outcomes within a concealed decision tree. Both interventions were delivered via a laptop computer after brief instructions from a researcher.
Total score on decisional conflict scale, and mode of delivery.
Women in the information programme (adjusted difference -6.2, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -3.7) and the decision analysis (-4.0, -6.5 to -1.5) groups had reduced decisional conflict compared with women in the usual care group. The rate of vaginal birth was higher for women in the decision analysis group compared with the usual care group (37% v 30%, adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 0.94 to 2.14), but the rates were similar in the information programme and usual care groups.
Decision aids can help women who have had a previous caesarean section to decide on mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The decision analysis approach might substantially affect national rates of caesarean section. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84367722.
确定两种基于计算机的决策辅助工具对有剖宫产史孕妇决策冲突及分娩方式的影响。
2004年5月至2006年8月进行的随机试验。
英格兰西南部和苏格兰的四个产科单位。
742名有一次下段剖宫产史且预计孕周≥37周的孕妇。排除非英语使用者。
常规护理:由产科和助产人员提供的标准护理。信息项目:女性浏览与计划阴道分娩、择期剖宫产和急诊剖宫产相关的母婴临床结局描述及概率。决策分析:根据女性进行的效用评估结合隐藏决策树内的临床结局概率推荐分娩方式。两种干预措施均在研究人员简短指导后通过笔记本电脑提供。
决策冲突量表总分及分娩方式。
与常规护理组女性相比,信息项目组(调整差异-6.2,95%置信区间-8.7至-3.7)和决策分析组(-4.0,-6.5至-1.5)的女性决策冲突减少。与常规护理组相比,决策分析组女性的阴道分娩率更高(37%对30%,调整优势比1.42,0.94至2.14),但信息项目组和常规护理组的比率相似。
决策辅助工具可帮助有剖宫产史的女性决定后续妊娠的分娩方式。决策分析方法可能会大幅影响全国剖宫产率。试验注册:当前受控试验ISRCTN84367722 。