ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2026
Evaluating childbirth options for women with obesity: a multi-criteria decision analysis.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating childbirth options for women with obesity: a multi-criteria decision analysis.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Childbirth in women with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m Methods: We employed multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using multi-attribute value theory (MAVT). The study population included women with obesity and term, singleton, cephalic pregnancies without compelling indications for cesarean birth. Options encompassed vaginal birth and intrapartum cesarean birth, each with either standard hospital care or continuous midwifery care, and prelabor cesarean birth. Stakeholder-informed goals related to biomedical safety, physiological processes, psychosocial care experience, physical strain for care providers, care setting resource use, and direct healthcare costs. Scenarios accounted for cesarean birth history and maternal comorbidities. We estimated the goal performance of the options using Swiss hospital inpatient data from 22,464 childbirths among women with obesity and assessments from experienced experts. To illustrate how stakeholder preferences may influence person-centered decision-making, we considered four hypothetical extreme and three real preference profiles. All data were aggregated into the options' overall values using a non-additive MAVT model. Sensitivity analyses addressed preference uncertainty. Direct healthcare costs were mapped onto the aggregated value of all other goals in cost-benefit visualizations. Results: Vaginal birth with standard hospital care or continuous midwifery care achieved similar or higher overall values compared to cesarean birth across a wide range of preference profiles. Prelabor and intrapartum cesarean birth generally achieved lower or comparable overall values, with greater variability depending on stakeholder preferences. Cost-benefit visualizations showed that vaginal birth provided good value at the lowest costs. Findings were largely consistent across obstetric scenarios. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of integrating multidimensional goals and stakeholder preferences into decision-making on childbirth options, alongside empirical data. In doing so, vaginal birth with either model of care performed well across the considered scenarios and preference profiles, though the findings should not be interpreted as prescriptive. This MCDA approach offers a novel framework to support evidence-based and person-centered decision-making deliberations on high-quality childbirth care for women with obesity.
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.