IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i4p453-463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of the DiAMOND Randomized Trial: Cost and Outcomes of 2 Decision Aids for Mode of Delivery among Women with a Previous Cesarean Section

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Hollinghurst

    (Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, s.p.hollinghurst@bristol.ac.uk)

  • Clare Emmett

    (Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom)

  • Tim J. Peters

    (Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom)

  • Helen Watson

    (Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom)

  • Tom Fahey

    (Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland)

  • Deirdre J. Murphy

    (Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin, and Coombe Women & Infants University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland)

  • Alan Montgomery

    (Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Background. Maternal preferences should be considered in decisions about mode of delivery following a previous cesarean, but risks and benefits are unclear. Decision aids can help decision making, although few studies have assessed costs in conjunction with effectiveness. Objective. Economic evaluation of 2 decision aids for women with 1 previous cesarean. Design. Cost-consequences analysis. Materials and Methods. Data sources were self-reported resource use and outcome and published national unit costs. The target population was women with 1 previous cesarean. The time horizon was 37 weeks’ gestation and 6 weeks postnatal. The perspective was health care delivery system. The interventions were usual care, usual care plus an information program, and usual care plus a decision analysis program. The outcome measures were costs to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), score on the Decisional Conflict Scale, and mode of delivery. Results of Main Analysis. Cost of delivery represented 84% of the total cost; mode of delivery was the most important determinant of cost differences across the groups. Mean (SD) total cost per mother and baby: 2033 (677) for usual care, 2069 (738) for information program, and 2019 (741) for decision analysis program. Decision aids reduced decisional conflict. Women using the decision analysis program had fewest cesarean deliveries. Results of Sensitivity Analysis. Applying a cost premium to emergency cesareans over electives had little effect on group comparisons. Conclusions were unaffected. Limitations. Disparity in timing of outcomes and costs, data completeness, and quality. Conclusions. Decision aids can reduce decisional conflict in women with a previous cesarean section when deciding on mode of delivery. The information program could be implemented at no extra cost to the NHS. The decision analysis program might reduce the rate of cesarean sections without any increase in costs

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Hollinghurst & Clare Emmett & Tim J. Peters & Helen Watson & Tom Fahey & Deirdre J. Murphy & Alan Montgomery, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of the DiAMOND Randomized Trial: Cost and Outcomes of 2 Decision Aids for Mode of Delivery among Women with a Previous Cesarean Section," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 453-463, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:4:p:453-463
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09353195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09353195
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09353195?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:4:p:453-463. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.