Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 22(1): 759, 2022 Oct 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36217115

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reducing cesarean rates is a public health priority. To help pregnant people select hospitals with lower cesarean rates, numerous organizations publish publically hospital cesarean rate data. Few pregnant people use these data when deciding where to deliver. We sought to determine whether making cesarean rate data more accessible and understandable increases the likelihood of pregnant people selecting low-cesarean rate hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a 1:1 randomized controlled trial in 2019-2021 among users of a fertility and pregnancy mobile application. Eligible participants were trying to conceive for fewer than five months or were 28-104 days into their pregnancies. Of 189,456 participants approached and enrolled, 120,621 participants met entry criteria and were included in analyses. The intervention group was offered an educational program explaining the importance of hospital cesarean rates and an interactive tool presenting hospital cesarean rates as 1-to-5-star ratings. Control group users were offered an educational program about hospital choice and a hospital choice tool without cesarean rate data. The primary outcome was the star rating of the hospital selected by each patient during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were the importance of cesarean rates in choosing a hospital and delivery method (post-hoc secondary outcome). RESULTS: Of 120,621 participants (mean [SD] age, 27.8 [7.9]), 12,284 (10.2%) reported their choice of hospital during pregnancy, with similar reporting rates in the intervention and control groups. Intervention group participants selected hospitals with higher star ratings (2.52 vs 2.16; difference, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.43] p < 0.001) and were more likely to believe that the hospitals they chose would impact their chances of having cesarean deliveries (38.5% vs 33.1%, p < 0.001) but did not assign higher priority to cesarean delivery rates when choosing their hospitals (76.2% vs 74.3%, p = 0.05). There was no difference in self-reported cesarean rates between the intervention and control groups (31.4% vs 31.4%, p = 0.98). CONCLUSION: People offered an educational program and interactive tool to compare hospital cesarean rates were more likely to use cesarean data in selecting a hospital and selected hospitals with lower cesarean rates but were not less likely to have a cesarean. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered December 9, 2016 at clinicaltrials.gov, First enrollment November 2019. ID NCT02987803, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987803.


Subject(s)
Cesarean Section , Hospitals, Maternity , Adult , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Research Design
2.
JAMA Pediatr ; 170(11): e162385, 2016 11 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27599167

ABSTRACT

Importance: Cesarean birth has been associated with higher risk of obesity in offspring, but previous studies have focused primarily on childhood obesity and have been hampered by limited control for confounders. Objective: To investigate the association between cesarean birth and risk of obesity in offspring. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted from September 1, 1996, to December 31, 2012, among participants of the Growing Up Today Study, including 22 068 offspring born to 15 271 women, followed up via questionnaire from ages 9 to 14 through ages 20 to 28 years. Data analysis was conducted from October 10, 2015, to June 14, 2016. Exposure: Birth by cesarean delivery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of obesity based on International Obesity Task Force or World Health Organization body mass index cutoffs, depending on age. Secondary outcomes included risks of obesity associated with changes in mode of delivery and differences in risk between siblings whose modes of birth were discordant. Results: Of the 22 068 offspring (20 950 white; 9359 male and 12 709 female), 4921 individuals (22.3%) were born by cesarean delivery. The cumulative risk of obesity through the end of follow-up was 13% among all participants. The adjusted risk ratio for obesity among offspring delivered via cesarean birth vs those delivered via vaginal birth was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.06-1.26; P = .002). This association was stronger among women without known indications for cesarean delivery (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54; P = .004). Offspring delivered via vaginal birth among women who had undergone a previous cesarean delivery had a 31% (95% CI, 17%-47%) lower risk of obesity compared with those born to women with repeated cesarean deliveries. In within-family analysis, individuals born by cesarean delivery had 64% (8%-148%) higher odds of obesity than did their siblings born via vaginal delivery. Conclusions and Relevance: Cesarean birth was associated with offspring obesity after accounting for major confounding factors. Although additional research is needed to clarify the mechanisms underlying this association, clinicians and patients should weigh this risk when considering cesarean delivery in the absence of a clear indication.


Subject(s)
Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Cesarean Section/statistics & numerical data , Obesity/epidemiology , Pediatric Obesity/epidemiology , Pediatric Obesity/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Body Mass Index , Child , Cohort Studies , Delivery, Obstetric/adverse effects , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Young Adult
3.
Semin Perinatol ; 35(1): 20-8, 2011 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21255703

ABSTRACT

Family-centered care (FCC) has been increasingly emphasized as an important and necessary element of neonatal intensive care. FCC is conceptualized as a philosophy with a set of guiding principles, as well as a cohort of programs, services, and practices that many hospitals have embraced. Several factors drive the pressing need for family-centered care and support of families of infants in NICUs, including the increase in the number of infants in NICUs; growth in diversity of the population and their concurrent needs; identification of parental and familial stress and lack of parenting confidence; and gaps in support for families, as identified by parents and NICU staff. We explore the origins of and advances in FCC in the NICU and identify various delivery methods and aspects of FCC and family support in the NICU. We examine the research and available evidence supporting FCC in the NICU and offer recommendations for increased dissemination and for future study.


Subject(s)
Family , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal/trends , Intensive Care, Neonatal/methods , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Medical Staff , Nursing Staff , Parents/psychology , Patient Education as Topic , Patient Satisfaction , Self-Help Groups , Social Support , Stress, Psychological
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...