Abstract

ObjectiveGiven the call to reduce rates of non-medically indicated cesarean deliveries (CDs) by encouraging trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), this study looks at social characteristics of patients choosing a TOLAC versus a scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) to determine disparities regarding delivery method choice. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of one CD between April 29, 2015–April 29, 2020. Patients were divided based on type of delivery chosen at admission. Chi-squared tests examined proportional differences between groups and logistic regression models examined odd ratios of choosing TOLAC versus SRCD according to socially dependent categories including race/ethnicity, health insurance, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Results1,983 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that patients with a high SVI (reference: low/medium SVI) (AOR 2.0, CI: 1.5, 2.5), self-identified as Black/ African American (AOR: 2.4, CI: 1.6, 3.6) or Hispanic/Latina (AOR: 2.0, CI: 1.4, 2.8) (reference: White), had public insurance (reference: private insurance) (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.8, 5.0), and who had an obese BMI (reference: non-obese BMI) were more likely to opt for a TOLAC rather than SRCD. ConclusionThese findings demonstrate differences in delivery method preferences. Specifically, more disadvantaged patients are more likely to choose TOLAC, suggesting that social and economic factors may play a role in delivery preferences. These findings have implications for improving individualized counselling and engaging in shared decision-making around mode of delivery.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.