IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0229304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Lindblad Wollmann
  • Can Liu
  • Sissel Saltvedt
  • Charlotte Elvander
  • Mia Ahlberg
  • Olof Stephansson

Abstract

Background: To improve care for women going through trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), we need to understand their birth experience better. We investigated the association between mode of delivery on birth experience in second birth among women with a first cesarean. Methods: A population-based cohort study based on the Swedish Pregnancy Register with 808 women with a first cesarean and eligible for TOLAC in 2014–2017. Outcomes were mean birth experience measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) score from 1–10 and having a negative birth experience defined as VAS score ≤5. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed with β-estimates and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Mean VAS score among women with an elective repeat cesarean (n = 251 (31%)), vaginal birth (n = 388 (48%)) or unplanned repeat cesarean (n = 169 (21%)) in second birth were 8.8 (standard deviation SD 1.4), 8.0 (SD 2.0) and 7.6 (SD 2.1), respectively. Compared to women having an elective repeat cesarean, women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had five-fold higher odds of negative birth experience (adjusted OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.5–16.5). Women having a first elective cesarean and a subsequent unplanned repeat cesarean delivery had the highest odds of negative birth experience (crude OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.5–35.5). Conclusions: Most women with a first cesarean scored their second birth experience as positive irrespective of mode of delivery. However, the odds of a negative birth experience increased among women having an unplanned repeat cesarean delivery, especially when the first cesarean delivery was elective.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Lindblad Wollmann & Can Liu & Sissel Saltvedt & Charlotte Elvander & Mia Ahlberg & Olof Stephansson, 2020. "Risk of negative birth experience in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A population-based cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0229304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Wahlqvist & Gordon Guyatt & David Armstrong & Alessio Degl’Innocenti & Diane Heels-Ansdell & Samer El-Dika & Ingela Wiklund & Carlo Fallone & Lisa Tanser & Sander Zanten & Peggy Austin & Alan Ba, 2007. "The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (WPAI-GERD)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 385-396, May.
    2. Yuxuan Gu & Hao Zhang & Shahmir H. Ali & Minzhuo Huang & Jingming Wei & Shuyan Gu & Xuemei Zhen & Xiaoqian Hu & Xueshan Sun & Hengjin Dong, 2019. "Social Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life among Residents in Zhejiang and Qinghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Marieke Krol & Elly Stolk & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "Predicting productivity based on EQ-5D: an explorative study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(5), pages 465-475, June.
    4. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.
    5. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    6. Malin Ulfsdotter & Lene Lindberg & Anna Månsdotter, 2015. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Swedish Universal Parenting Program All Children in Focus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Maria Öjmyr-Joelsson & Margret Nisell & Björn Frenckner & Per-Anders Rydelius & Kyllike Christensson, 2006. "Parental Experiences: Care of Children With High and Intermediate Imperforate Anus," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 15(4), pages 290-305, November.
    9. Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Zhihao Yang & Ataru Igarashi & Michael Herdman & Nan Luo, 2021. "How Do Respondents Interpret and View the EQ-VAS? A Qualitative Study of Three Asian Populations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 283-293, March.
    10. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    11. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    12. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    13. Hui-Chuan Huang & Meei-Ling Shyu & Mei-Feng Lin & Chaur-Jong Hu & Chien-Hung Chang & Hsin-Chien Lee & Nai-Fang Chi & Hsiu-Ju Chang, 2017. "Validation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of a Chinese Version of the Emotional and Social Dysfunction Questionnaire in Stroke Patients," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 26(6), pages 763-782, December.
    14. George L. Wehby & Hodad Naderi & James M. Robbins & Timothy N. Ansley & Peter C. Damiano, 2014. "Comparing the Visual Analogue Scale and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Oral Clefts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    15. Marie-Josée Dion & Pierre Tousignant & Jean Bourbeau & Dick Menzies & Kevin Schwartzman, 2002. "Measurement of Health Preferences among Patients with Tuberculous Infection and Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 102-114, September.
    16. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    17. Seda Erdem & Danny Campbell, 2017. "Preferences for public involvement in health service decisions: a comparison between best-worst scaling and trio-wise stated preference elicitation techniques," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(9), pages 1107-1123, December.
    18. S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    19. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    20. Peter Franks & Erica I. Lubetkin & Joy Melnikow, 2007. "Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio‐demographic group?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 319-325, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.