ArticlePloS one2024
Women's preferences for caesarean or vaginal birth with a perspective of future fertility: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate pregnant women's preferences for risks of vaginal and caesarean birth, including possible impacts on future fertility.
methodsIn this discrete choice experiment, low-risk nulliparous pregnant women recruited after 28 weeks of gestation evaluated eight choice sets, each between two different hypothetical births scenarios which intermixed the risks of planned caesarean or vaginal birth. Scenarios consisted of six attributes: pain, maternal health, neonatal health, risk of unplanned intervention, impact on fertility and risk of complications in the next pregnancy. All scenarios contained risks to neonatal health as neither vaginal nor caesarean birth guarantee an ideal outcome. Choice data were analysed using a conditional logistic regression model.
resultsBetween June and September 2023, 211 participants, including 34 from pilot interviews, completed the questionnaire. Influential attributes were maternal health (conditional odds ratio [COR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42, p<0.001) and risk of unplanned intervention (COR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.51, p<0.001), favouring caesarean birth. Conversely, impact on fertility (COR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.83, p<0.001) and complications in the next pregnancy favoured vaginal birth (COR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.045).
conclusionsParticipants weighed the included morbidity risks of planned caesarean and vaginal birth in a low-risk pregnancy approximately equally. To facilitate an informed birth decision, clinicians should, apart from neonatal outcomes, particularly consider discussing impacts on fertility, maternal health and the risks of unplanned intervention or future pregnancy complications.
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.