Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?

Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Phocas Biraboneye S [verfasserIn] Omondi Ogutu [verfasserIn] Jos van Roosmalen [verfasserIn] Samson Wanjala [verfasserIn] Kizito Lubano [verfasserIn] John Kinuthia [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth - BMC, 2003, 17(2017), 1, Seite 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2017 ; number:1 ; pages:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ051684705

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ051684705
003	DE-627
005	20230308162406.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ051684705
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RG1-991
100	0		\|a Phocas Biraboneye S \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.
653		0	\|a Gynecology and obstetrics
700	0		\|a Omondi Ogutu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jos van Roosmalen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Samson Wanjala \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kizito Lubano \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a John Kinuthia \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth \|d BMC, 2003 \|g 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 \|w (DE-627)335489087 \|w (DE-600)2059869-5 \|x 14712393 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2017 \|g number:1 \|g pages:8
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2017 \|e 1 \|h 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	p b s pbs o o oo j v r jvr s w sw k l kl j k jk
matchkey_str	article:14712393:2017----::raolbuoeetvrpaceaeneieyrwmnaignnomdeiin
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
callnumber-subject-code	RG
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Phocas Biraboneye S verfasserin aut Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital? 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Gynecology and obstetrics Omondi Ogutu verfasserin aut Jos van Roosmalen verfasserin aut Samson Wanjala verfasserin aut Kizito Lubano verfasserin aut John Kinuthia verfasserin aut In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC, 2003 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 14712393 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 8
spelling	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Phocas Biraboneye S verfasserin aut Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital? 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Gynecology and obstetrics Omondi Ogutu verfasserin aut Jos van Roosmalen verfasserin aut Samson Wanjala verfasserin aut Kizito Lubano verfasserin aut John Kinuthia verfasserin aut In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC, 2003 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 14712393 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 8
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Phocas Biraboneye S verfasserin aut Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital? 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Gynecology and obstetrics Omondi Ogutu verfasserin aut Jos van Roosmalen verfasserin aut Samson Wanjala verfasserin aut Kizito Lubano verfasserin aut John Kinuthia verfasserin aut In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC, 2003 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 14712393 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 8
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Phocas Biraboneye S verfasserin aut Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital? 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Gynecology and obstetrics Omondi Ogutu verfasserin aut Jos van Roosmalen verfasserin aut Samson Wanjala verfasserin aut Kizito Lubano verfasserin aut John Kinuthia verfasserin aut In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC, 2003 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 14712393 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 8
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Phocas Biraboneye S verfasserin aut Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital? 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya. Gynecology and obstetrics Omondi Ogutu verfasserin aut Jos van Roosmalen verfasserin aut Samson Wanjala verfasserin aut Kizito Lubano verfasserin aut John Kinuthia verfasserin aut In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC, 2003 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 14712393 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 8
language	English
source	In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8
sourceStr	In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 17(2017), 1, Seite 8 volume:17 year:2017 number:1 pages:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Gynecology and obstetrics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Phocas Biraboneye S @@aut@@ Omondi Ogutu @@aut@@ Jos van Roosmalen @@aut@@ Samson Wanjala @@aut@@ Kizito Lubano @@aut@@ John Kinuthia @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	335489087
id	DOAJ051684705
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ051684705</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308162406.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ051684705</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RG1-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Phocas Biraboneye S</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gynecology and obstetrics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Omondi Ogutu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jos van Roosmalen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samson Wanjala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kizito Lubano</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Kinuthia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">14712393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Phocas Biraboneye S
spellingShingle	Phocas Biraboneye S misc RG1-991 misc Gynecology and obstetrics Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
authorStr	Phocas Biraboneye S
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)335489087
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RG1-991
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14712393
topic_title	RG1-991 Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
topic	misc RG1-991 misc Gynecology and obstetrics
topic_unstemmed	misc RG1-991 misc Gynecology and obstetrics
topic_browse	misc RG1-991 misc Gynecology and obstetrics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
hierarchy_parent_id	335489087
hierarchy_top_title	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5
title	Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ051684705 (DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3
title_full	Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
author_sort	Phocas Biraboneye S
journal	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
journalStr	BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	8
author_browse	Phocas Biraboneye S Omondi Ogutu Jos van Roosmalen Samson Wanjala Kizito Lubano John Kinuthia
container_volume	17
class	RG1-991
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Phocas Biraboneye S
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at kenyatta national hospital?
callnumber	RG1-991
title_auth	Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
abstract	Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.
abstractGer	Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3 https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393
remote_bool	true
author2	Omondi Ogutu Jos van Roosmalen Samson Wanjala Kizito Lubano John Kinuthia
author2Str	Omondi Ogutu Jos van Roosmalen Samson Wanjala Kizito Lubano John Kinuthia
ppnlink	335489087
callnumber-subject	RG - Gynecology and Obstetrics
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3
callnumber-a	RG1-991
up_date	2024-07-03T21:43:36.566Z
_version_	1803595826139758592
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ051684705</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308162406.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ051684705</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RG1-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Phocas Biraboneye S</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers’ recommendations. The doctors’ preferences exert a strong influence on patient’s decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients’ records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women’s mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form. Conclusions There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor’s preferences affected women’s decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gynecology and obstetrics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Omondi Ogutu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jos van Roosmalen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samson Wanjala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kizito Lubano</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Kinuthia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">14712393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f0422d5f5f174e9f929a47250a2793a3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.402297

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?