ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2022
Factors associated with labor after cesarean in a prospective cohort.
Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Network analysis and trajectories of maternal emotional symptoms during labor.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Lateral recumbent position versus kneeling prone position combined with unprotected perineal delivery in natural childbirth: implication for clinical care.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe goals of this study were (a) to determine how experiences in the first perinatal period shape birth mode preference among individuals with a first birth by cesarean; and (b) to examine the relationship between birth mode preference and other factors and subsequent labor after cesarean (LAC).
methodsData are from the First Baby Study, a prospective cohort of 3006 primiparous individuals. The analytic sample includes individuals with a first cesarean birth and a second birth during the 5-year follow-up period (n = 394). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the relationship between experiences in the first perinatal period and subsequent preference for vaginal birth, and between preference for vaginal birth and LAC in the second birth.
resultsAbout a third of the sample preferred vaginal birth in a future birth, and 20% had LAC. Factors associated with higher odds of future vaginal birth preference were favorable prenatal attitude toward vaginal birth, lower perceived maternal-infant bonding at 1 month after the first birth, post-traumatic stress symptoms after the first birth, and desiring more than 1 additional child after the first birth. Odds of LAC were nearly 8 times higher among those who preferred vaginal birth (AOR = 7.69, P < .001). Fatigue after the first birth, post-traumatic stress symptoms after the first birth, and having higher predicted chances of vaginal birth after cesarean were also associated with higher odds of LAC.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the formation of preferences around vaginal birth may present a modifiable target for future counseling and shared decision-making interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.