Continuity obstetric care demonstrates greater vaginal birth after caesarean success

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Georgina Facchetti, Zhen Teo, Meenu Sharma, Aaron Budden
{"title":"Continuity obstetric care demonstrates greater vaginal birth after caesarean success","authors":"Georgina Facchetti,&nbsp;Zhen Teo,&nbsp;Meenu Sharma,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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.

产科护理的连续性表明,剖腹产后经阴道分娩的成功率更高。
背景:澳大利亚的剖腹产率高于经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的平均水平,而且还在不断上升。剖腹产后经阴道分娩(VBAC)对特定产妇是安全的。与其他模式相比,助产士持续护理(CoC)与更高的阴道分娩率相关;然而,对 VBAC 尝试和成功的影响尚不清楚。目的:首要目的是确定在实现 VBAC 方面,CoC 和非 CoC(NCoC)模式之间是否存在差异。次要目的是确定在这些模式中尝试 VBAC 的产妇比例是否存在差异:回顾性审查所有在 2021 年分娩并曾有一次或多次剖腹产经历的产妇的产前记录和分娩数据。剖腹产次数为两次或两次以下的产妇被纳入其中。如果存在VBAC禁忌症,则排除在外:142/1109(12.8%)名曾进行过剖腹产的妇女符合尝试 VBAC 的条件。47/109(43.1%)名产妇在一次剖腹产后尝试了阴道分娩,成功率为 78.7%。在一次剖腹产后,CoC 的产妇比 NCoC 的产妇更有可能实现 VBAC(45.2% vs 26.1%;相对风险 (RR) 1.76,95% CI 1.04-3.00),尽管按私立和助产 CoC 模式进行分层时,助产 CoC 模式的产妇更有可能成功(私立 RR 0.69,95% CI 0.23-2.07 vs 助产 RR 2.48,95% CI 1.50-4.11)。CoC中的妇女更有可能尝试VBAC(54.7% vs 34.8%;RR 1.57,95% CI 1.02-2.41),并接受VBAC咨询(92.5% vs 62%;RR 1.48,95% CI 1.41-3.11):CoC通过几个因素提高了尝试VBAC和成功VBAC的比率,包括增加咨询和提供更多的分娩选择。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
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