{"title":"Continuity obstetric care demonstrates greater vaginal birth after caesarean success","authors":"Georgina Facchetti, Zhen Teo, Meenu Sharma, Aaron Budden","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Australia's caesarean rate is higher than Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average, and is rising. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is safe for selected women. Midwifery continuity of care (CoC) is associated with higher rates of vaginal birth compared to other models; however, impacts on VBAC attempts and success are unknown.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>The primary aim was to determine if there is a difference in achieving VBAC between CoC and non-CoC (NCoC) models. The secondary aim was to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of women attempting VBAC between these models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Retrospective review of antenatal records and birthing data of all women who birthed in 2021 with one or more previous caesareans. Women were included if they had two or fewer caesareans. Women were excluded if contraindications to VBAC existed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 142/1109 (12.8%) women who had previous caesareans and were eligible to attempt VBAC. There were 47/109 (43.1%) women who attempted vaginal birth after one caesarean with 78.7% success. After one caesarean, women in CoC were more likely to achieve VBAC than NCoC (45.2% vs 26.1%; relative risk (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.04–3.00), although when stratified by private and midwifery CoC models, women in midwifery CoC models were more likely to be successful (private RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23–2.07 vs midwifery RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.50–4.11). Women in CoC were more likely to attempt VBAC (54.7% vs 34.8%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02–2.41), and receive counselling about VBAC (92.5% vs 62%; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.41–3.11).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>CoC improves the rate of attempted and successful VBAC through several factors, including increased counselling and greater provision of birth choices.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"64 3","pages":"264-268"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajo.13790","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Australia's caesarean rate is higher than Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average, and is rising. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is safe for selected women. Midwifery continuity of care (CoC) is associated with higher rates of vaginal birth compared to other models; however, impacts on VBAC attempts and success are unknown.
Aims
The primary aim was to determine if there is a difference in achieving VBAC between CoC and non-CoC (NCoC) models. The secondary aim was to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of women attempting VBAC between these models.
Materials and Methods
Retrospective review of antenatal records and birthing data of all women who birthed in 2021 with one or more previous caesareans. Women were included if they had two or fewer caesareans. Women were excluded if contraindications to VBAC existed.
Results
There were 142/1109 (12.8%) women who had previous caesareans and were eligible to attempt VBAC. There were 47/109 (43.1%) women who attempted vaginal birth after one caesarean with 78.7% success. After one caesarean, women in CoC were more likely to achieve VBAC than NCoC (45.2% vs 26.1%; relative risk (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.04–3.00), although when stratified by private and midwifery CoC models, women in midwifery CoC models were more likely to be successful (private RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23–2.07 vs midwifery RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.50–4.11). Women in CoC were more likely to attempt VBAC (54.7% vs 34.8%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02–2.41), and receive counselling about VBAC (92.5% vs 62%; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.41–3.11).
Conclusion
CoC improves the rate of attempted and successful VBAC through several factors, including increased counselling and greater provision of birth choices.
期刊介绍:
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.