تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکی پیرامون نوع زایمان بعد از سزارین: مطالعه مروری

نوع مقاله: مروری

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد مشاوره در مامایی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

2 مربی گروه مامایی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

10.22038/ijogi.2020.16293

چکیده

مقدمه: اگرچه زایمان طبیعی بعد از سزارین برای افراد واجد شرایط، جایگزین مناسب‌تری نسبت به سزارین تکراری می­باشد؛ اما تصمیم‌گیری بین این دو گزینه، فرآیندی چالش‌برانگیز و مبتنی بر تصمیم مراقبین سلامت و مادران می­باشد. مطالعات مرتبط با تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکی پیرامون انتخاب نوع زایمان پس از سزارین، با نتایج متناقضی همراه بودند، لذا مطالعه حاضر با هدف مروری بر تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکیپیرامون آگاهی، تعارض تصمیم‌گیری و انتخاب نوع زایمان بعد از سزارین انجام شد.
روش‌کار: در این مطالعه به منظور دسترسی به مقالات مرتبط، جستجو در پایگاه­های داده انگلیسیgoogle scholar، up to date، Cochrane، web of science، Scopus، PubMed با استفاده از کلیدواژه­های مطابق با MESH شامل vaginal birth after cesarean، shared decision making، decision aid، counseling و همچنین پایگاه­های داده فارسی زبان magiran، IranMed،SID  با استفاده از کلیدواژه­های "زایمان واژینال پس از سزارین"، "تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکی"، "تصمیم‌یار" و "مشاوره" در بازه زمانی اکتبر 2018 تا جولای 2019 انجام شد.ارزیابی کیفیت مقالات با استفاده از چک لیست consort 2017 انجام شد.
یافته‌ها: از مجموع 120 مقاله یافت شده در پایگاه­های داده، 4 مقاله بر طبق معیارهای ورود، وارد مطالعه شدند. در مطالعات مختلف، روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکی، تأثیر متناقضی بر انتخاب زایمان طبیعی بعد از سزارین داشتند؛ اما بر آگاهی و تعارض تصمیم‌گیری تأثیر معناداری داشتند.
نتیجه‌گیری: استفاده از روش­های تصمیم‌گیری اشتراکی، آگاهی زنان سزارین قبلی نسبت به انتخاب نوع زایمان را افزایش و تعارض تصمیم‌گیری را کاهش می­دهد. از آنجایی که در مورد انتخاب زایمان طبیعی بعد از سزارین، نتایج متناقض می­باشند، نیاز به مطالعات بیشتر در این خصوص وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Shared decision-making about birth after cesarean: review study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyede Zahra Hoseini Haji 1
  • Mahboobeh Firoozi 2
1 M.Sc. of Counseling in Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
2 Instructor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Although vaginal birth after cesarean is a more appropriate alternative comparing to repeat cesarean for eligible individuals, making decision between these two choices is a challenging process and depends on the decision of care providers and mothers. The studies about shared decision making showed different results about mode of birth after cesarean; therefore, this study was performed with aim to review shared decision making about knowledge, decisional conflict and choosing mode of delivery after cesarean.
Methods: In this study, for access to the related articles, search was done on PubMed, Scopus, up to date, google scholar, Cochrane and web of science using the MESH-related keywords including "Vaginal birth after cesarean", "Shared decision making", "decision Aid" and "Counseling", as well as Persian databases off SID, magiran and IranMed from October 2018 to July 2019. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Consort Checklist 2017.
Results: From the total of 120 articles found in the databases, 4 articles entered the study according to inclusion criteria. In various studies, Shared decision making methods had a contradictory effect on choosing vaginal birth after cesarean, but had a significant effect on knowledge and decisional conflict.
Conclusion: The use of Shared decision making methods increases the knowledge of women with previous cesarean about choosing the mode of delivery and decreases the decisional conflict. Since the results about choosing birth after cesarean are inconsistent, further studies are needed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Counseling
  • Decision aid
  • Shared decision making
  • Vaginal Birth after Cesarean
  1. Shorten A, Shorten B, Kennedy HP. Complexities of choice after prior cesarean: a narrative analysis. Birth 2014; 41(2):178-84.
  2. Rafiei M, Saei Ghare M, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, et al. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd) 2018; 16(4):221-234.
  3. Moffat MA, Bell JS, Porter MA, Lawton S, Hundley V, Danielian P, et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: a qualitative study. BJOG 2007; 114(1):86-93.
  4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC): Resource Overview. 2010. Available at: URL:https://www.acog.org/Womens Health/Vaginal-Birth-After-Cesarean-VBAC.
  5. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(6):1226-32.
  6. Yang Q, Wen SW, Oppenheimer L, Chen XK, Black D, Gao J, et al. Association of caesarean delivery for first birth with placenta praevia and placental abruption in second pregnancy. BJOG 2007; 114(5):609-13.
  7. Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, Duke W, Erwich JJ, Khong TY, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet 2011; 377(9778):1703-17.
  8. Crowther CA, Dodd JM, Hiller JE, Haslam RR, Robinson JS, Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med 2012; 9(3):e1001192.
  9. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin JM. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Childbirth Alternatives Post-Cesarean Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176(2):419-25.
  10. Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15:16.
  11. Santerre RE. The effect of the ACOG guideline on vaginal births after cesarean. Med Care Res Rev 1996; 53(3):315-29.
  12. Rees KM, Shaw AR, Bennert K, Emmett CL, Montgomery AA. Healthcare professionals’ views on two computer‐based decision aids for women choosing mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: a qualitative study. BJOG 2009; 116(7):906-14.
  13. Frost J, Shaw A, Montgomery A, Murphy DJ. Women’s views on the use of decision aids for decision making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: qualitative interview study. BJOG 2009; 116(7):896-905.
  14. Dugas M, Shorten A, Dubé E, Wassef M, Bujold E, Chaillet N. Decision aid tools to support women's decision making in pregnancy and birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74(12):1968-78.
  15. O’Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, et al. Toward the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26(3):716-25.
  16. Landy CK, Sword W, Cunningham C, Rimas H, Stewart B, Biringer A, et al. Counselling Women About a Trial Of Labour (TOL) Versus a Planned Repeat Caesarean Section (CS): Providers' Attitudes and Motivational Factors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2018; 40(6):840.
  17. Eden KB, Perrin NA, Vesco KK, Guise JM. A randomized comparative trial of two decision tools for pregnant women with prior cesareans. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2014; 43(5):568-79.
  18. Montgomery AA, Emmett CL, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel RR, et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007; 334(7607):1305.
  19. Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making Choices for Childbirth: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision‐aid for Informed Birth after Cesarean. Birth 2005; 32(4):252-61.
  20. Hoseini Haji SZ, Firoozi M, Asghari Pour N, Shakeri MT. Impact of Motivational Interviewing on Women's Knowledge, Attitude and Intention to Choose Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Section: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health 2020; 8(1):2115-25.
  21. O'cathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ, Kirkham M. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. BMJ 2002; 324(7338):643.
  22. Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH, Kaplan RM, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143(4):293-300.
  23. Gidiri M, McFarlane J, Holding S, Morgan RJ, Lindow SW. Uptake of invasive testing following a positive triple test for Down's syndrome. Are midwives different counsellors compared with obstetricians? J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27(2):148-9.
  24. Catling‐Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS. Clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2011; 67(8):1646-61.
  25. Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Smith V, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Nicoletti J, Devane D, et al. Women-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): A systematic review. Midwifery 2015; 31(7):657-63.
  26. Tucker Edmonds B. Shared decision-making and decision support: their role in obstetrics and gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 26(6):523-30.
  27. Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA, Small R, Crowther CA. Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision‐making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (7):CD010041.
  28. Godden B, Hauck Y, Hardwick T, Bayes S. Women's perceptions of contributory factors for successful vaginal birth after cesarean. International Journal of Childbirth 2012; 2(2):96-106.