有剖腹产史的患者在分娩选择上的社会差异。

IF 1.4 3区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"有剖腹产史的患者在分娩选择上的社会差异。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.srhc.2024.101011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Given the call to reduce rates of non-medically indicated cesarean deliveries (CDs) by encouraging trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), this study looks at social characteristics of patients choosing a TOLAC versus a scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) to determine disparities regarding delivery method choice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one CD between April 29, 2015–April 29, 2020. Patients were divided based on type of delivery chosen at admission. Chi-squared tests examined proportional differences between groups and logistic regression models examined odd ratios of choosing TOLAC versus SRCD according to socially dependent categories including race/ethnicity, health insurance, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>1,983 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that patients with a high SVI (reference: low/medium SVI) (AOR 2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.5), self-identified as Black/ African American (AOR: 2.4, CI: 1.6, 3.6) or Hispanic/Latina (AOR: 2.0, CI: 1.4, 2.8) (reference: White), had public insurance (reference: private insurance) (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.8, 5.0), and who had an obese BMI (reference: non-obese BMI) were more likely to opt for a TOLAC rather than SRCD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These findings demonstrate differences in delivery method preferences. Specifically, more disadvantaged patients are more likely to choose TOLAC, suggesting that social and economic factors may play a role in delivery preferences. These findings have implications for improving individualized counselling and engaging in shared decision-making around mode of delivery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54199,"journal":{"name":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social disparities in delivery choice among patients with history of cesarean\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.srhc.2024.101011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Given the call to reduce rates of non-medically indicated cesarean deliveries (CDs) by encouraging trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), this study looks at social characteristics of patients choosing a TOLAC versus a scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) to determine disparities regarding delivery method choice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one CD between April 29, 2015–April 29, 2020. Patients were divided based on type of delivery chosen at admission. Chi-squared tests examined proportional differences between groups and logistic regression models examined odd ratios of choosing TOLAC versus SRCD according to socially dependent categories including race/ethnicity, health insurance, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>1,983 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that patients with a high SVI (reference: low/medium SVI) (AOR 2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.5), self-identified as Black/ African American (AOR: 2.4, CI: 1.6, 3.6) or Hispanic/Latina (AOR: 2.0, CI: 1.4, 2.8) (reference: White), had public insurance (reference: private insurance) (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.8, 5.0), and who had an obese BMI (reference: non-obese BMI) were more likely to opt for a TOLAC rather than SRCD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These findings demonstrate differences in delivery method preferences. Specifically, more disadvantaged patients are more likely to choose TOLAC, suggesting that social and economic factors may play a role in delivery preferences. These findings have implications for improving individualized counselling and engaging in shared decision-making around mode of delivery.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575624000661\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575624000661","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的鉴于人们呼吁通过鼓励剖宫产后试产(TOLAC)来降低非医学指征的剖宫产率(CD),本研究调查了选择 TOLAC 与计划内重复剖宫产(SRCD)的患者的社会特征,以确定分娩方式选择上的差异:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是 2015 年 4 月 29 日至 2020 年 4 月 29 日期间有过一次剖宫产史的患者。患者根据入院时选择的分娩方式进行划分。卡方检验检验了组间的比例差异,逻辑回归模型检验了根据种族/民族、医疗保险、孕前体重指数和社会弱势指数(SVI)等社会依赖类别选择 TOLAC 与 SRCD 的奇数比:共纳入 1,983 名患者。多变量逻辑回归模型显示,高 SVI(参考:低/中 SVI)(AOR:2.0,CI:1.5,2.5)、自我认同为黑人/非裔美国人(AOR:2.4,CI:1.6,3.6)或西班牙裔/拉丁裔(AOR:2.0,CI:1.4,2.8)(参考:白人)、有公共保险(参考:私人保险)(AOR:3.7,CI:2.8,5.0)、BMI 肥胖(参考:非肥胖 BMI)的人更有可能选择 TOLAC 而不是 SRCD:这些研究结果表明了分娩方式偏好的差异。结论:这些研究结果表明了患者对分娩方式的偏好存在差异,特别是弱势患者更倾向于选择 TOLAC,这表明社会和经济因素可能在分娩方式的偏好中起到一定作用。这些发现对改善个体化咨询和围绕分娩方式共同决策具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social disparities in delivery choice among patients with history of cesarean

Objective

Given the call to reduce rates of non-medically indicated cesarean deliveries (CDs) by encouraging trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), this study looks at social characteristics of patients choosing a TOLAC versus a scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) to determine disparities regarding delivery method choice.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one CD between April 29, 2015–April 29, 2020. Patients were divided based on type of delivery chosen at admission. Chi-squared tests examined proportional differences between groups and logistic regression models examined odd ratios of choosing TOLAC versus SRCD according to socially dependent categories including race/ethnicity, health insurance, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).

Results

1,983 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that patients with a high SVI (reference: low/medium SVI) (AOR 2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.5), self-identified as Black/ African American (AOR: 2.4, CI: 1.6, 3.6) or Hispanic/Latina (AOR: 2.0, CI: 1.4, 2.8) (reference: White), had public insurance (reference: private insurance) (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.8, 5.0), and who had an obese BMI (reference: non-obese BMI) were more likely to opt for a TOLAC rather than SRCD.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate differences in delivery method preferences. Specifically, more disadvantaged patients are more likely to choose TOLAC, suggesting that social and economic factors may play a role in delivery preferences. These findings have implications for improving individualized counselling and engaging in shared decision-making around mode of delivery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
73
审稿时长
45 days
×
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