Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists.

Victoria H. Coleman, Kristine Erickson, J. Schulkin, S. Zinberg, B. Sachs
{"title":"Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists.","authors":"Victoria H. Coleman, Kristine Erickson, J. Schulkin, S. Zinberg, B. Sachs","doi":"10.1097/01.OGX.0000180847.45288.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo assess obstetrician-gynecologists' current practice patterns and opinions regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC).\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nQuestionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1,200 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) fellows in July 2003. Information was gathered on percentage of cesarean and VBAC deliveries performed, factors influencing changes in these rates in the past 5 years, hospital protocol regarding VBAC and factors influencing the recommendation of VBAC.\n\n\nRESULTS\nFifty-three percent of questionnaires were returned to ACOG after 3 mailings. Approximately 49% of respondents reported that they were performing more cesarean deliveries than they were 5 years earlier. The primary reasons for this increase were the risk of liability and patient preference for delivery method. More than 25% of physicians reported that they practiced in hospitals that do not follow the ACOG guidelines with respect to resources and immediate availability. Almost all (98.2%) respondents agreed that they knew the risks and benefits of VBAC. However, only 61% reported feeling competent in determining which patients will have a successful VBAC.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nObstetrician-gynecologists seem to be aware of the risks and benefits of VBAC; however, there is some doubt as to who should be offered a trial of labor and what predicts a successful VBAC.","PeriodicalId":192418,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of reproductive medicine","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of reproductive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.OGX.0000180847.45288.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess obstetrician-gynecologists' current practice patterns and opinions regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). STUDY DESIGN Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1,200 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) fellows in July 2003. Information was gathered on percentage of cesarean and VBAC deliveries performed, factors influencing changes in these rates in the past 5 years, hospital protocol regarding VBAC and factors influencing the recommendation of VBAC. RESULTS Fifty-three percent of questionnaires were returned to ACOG after 3 mailings. Approximately 49% of respondents reported that they were performing more cesarean deliveries than they were 5 years earlier. The primary reasons for this increase were the risk of liability and patient preference for delivery method. More than 25% of physicians reported that they practiced in hospitals that do not follow the ACOG guidelines with respect to resources and immediate availability. Almost all (98.2%) respondents agreed that they knew the risks and benefits of VBAC. However, only 61% reported feeling competent in determining which patients will have a successful VBAC. CONCLUSION Obstetrician-gynecologists seem to be aware of the risks and benefits of VBAC; however, there is some doubt as to who should be offered a trial of labor and what predicts a successful VBAC.
剖宫产后阴道分娩:妇产科医生的实践模式。
目的了解妇产科医师对剖宫产后阴道分娩的实践模式和看法。研究设计调查问卷于2003年7月随机邮寄给1200名美国妇产科医师学会(ACOG)研究员。收集了剖宫产和VBAC分娩的百分比、过去5年中影响这些比率变化的因素、关于VBAC的医院方案以及影响VBAC推荐的因素等信息。结果经3次邮寄后,问卷回收率为53%。大约49%的答复者报告说,与5年前相比,他们实施了更多的剖宫产。这种增加的主要原因是责任风险和患者对分娩方式的偏好。超过25%的医生报告说,他们所在的医院在资源和即时可用性方面没有遵循ACOG指南。几乎所有(98.2%)的受访者都同意他们知道VBAC的风险和好处。然而,只有61%的人表示有能力确定哪些患者将成功进行VBAC。结论妇产科医生似乎已经意识到VBAC的风险和益处;然而,有一些疑问,谁应该提供试用劳动和什么预测成功的VBAC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信