Search

Background: Experiencing stillbirth is devastating and leaves parents searching for causes. Autopsy is the gold standard for investigation, but deciding to consent to this procedure is very difficult for parents. Decision support in the form of clear, consistent, and parent-centered information is likely to be helpful. The aims of this study were to understand the influences on parents' decisions about autopsy after stillbirth and to identify attributes of effective decision support that align with parents' needs., Methods: Framework analysis using the Decision Drivers Model was used to analyze responses from 460 Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) mothers who took part in a multi-country online survey of parents' experiences of stillbirth. The main outcomes examined were factors influencing mothers' decisions to consent to autopsy after stillbirth., Results: Free-text responses from 454 ANZ mothers referenced autopsy, yielding 1221 data segments for analysis. The data confirmed the difficult decision autopsy consent entails. Mothers had a strong need for answers coupled with a strong need to protect their baby. Four "decision drivers" were confirmed: preparedness for the decision; parental responsibility; possible consequences; and role of health professionals. Each had the capacity to influence decisions for or against autopsy. Also prominent were the "aftermath" of the decision: receiving the results; and decisional regret or uncertainty., Conclusions: The influences on decisions about autopsy are diverse and unpredictable. Effective decision support requires a consistent and structured approach that is built on understanding of parents' needs., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Stillbirth, among the most distressing experiences an adult may face, is also a time when parents must decide whether an autopsy or other post-mortem examinations will be performed on their infant. Autopsies can reveal information that might help explain stillbirth, yet little is known about how people make this difficult decision., Objectives: This study examines the influences on decisions about autopsy after stillbirth among Australian parents., Design: The study involved secondary analysis of transcripts of three focus groups using qualitative content analysis., Participants and Setting: Seventeen parents of 14 stillborn babies participated in consultations around the revision of a perinatal mortality audit guideline., Results: Parents shared the decision making. Four decision drivers were identified: parents' preparedness or readiness to make decisions; parental responsibility; concern for possible consequences of an autopsy and the role of health professionals. Each decision driver involved reasons both for and against autopsy. Two decision aftermath were also present: some parents who agreed to an autopsy were dissatisfied with the way the autopsy results were given to them and some parents who did not have an autopsy for their infant expressed some form of regret or uncertainty about the choice they made., Conclusions: To make decisions about autopsy after stillbirth, parents need factual information about autopsy procedures, recognition that there might be fear of blame, an environment of trust, and health services and professionals prepared and skilled for difficult conversations., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support decision-making about vaginal birth after a caesarean birth.Secondary objectives are to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013), Current Controlled Trials (22 July 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (22 July 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also conducted citation searches of included studies to identify possible concurrent qualitative studies., Selection Criteria: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials with reported data of any intervention designed to support pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth make decisions about their options for birth. Studies using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form only would have been eligible for inclusion if data were able to be extracted., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria and carried out data extraction and quality assessment of studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors of included trials for additional information. All included interventions were classified as independent, shared or mediated decision supports. Consensus was obtained for classifications. Verification of the final list of included studies was undertaken by three review authors., Main Results: Three randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters.We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%).There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women).More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women).Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met.Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers.

Background: Stillbirth remains one of the least understood areas of infant death and accurate data on the causes of stillbirth are the cornerstone of stillbirth prevention. An autopsy examination remains the gold standard post-mortem investigation for stillbirth. However, decisions about post-mortem investigations, particularly autopsy are difficult. The purpose of this review is to examine the effectiveness of methods to help parents who have experienced a stillbirth decide whether to have post-mortem investigations, including whether to have an autopsy performed., Objectives: The primary objectives were a) to examine the effectiveness of interventions to support parents' decisions about autopsy consent after a stillbirth on outcomes for parents, and b) to determine autopsy rates. Secondary objectives were to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 July 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 24 July 2012), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister (mRCT) (18 September 2012) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (18 September 2012). We also searched the websites of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity (SANDS) and International Stillbirth Alliance (ISA) (18 September 2012) and then subsequently searched the websites of all the ISA member organisations., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed specifically to support parents who have experienced a stillbirth make decisions about their options for post-mortem investigations including all investigations after stillbirth compared with usual care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened citations against the selection criteria. , Main Results: No studies meeting the review inclusion criteria were identified. A search of 40 websites associated with supporting parents who experience stillbirth also found little reference to, or information about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations., Authors' Conclusions: Support for parents making decisions about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations after stillbirth must rely on the ad hoc knowledge and experience of those involved at the time.

Health decisions involve sharing information and making choices-even if the choice is to leave the decision to others. The way that information is delivered and understood by consumers across their cancer journey in turn influences the health decisions they take. A public health approach to the cancer journey considers the information needs of individuals and the structures and systems that facilitate the provision of credible and timely information. This paper examines emerging research that takes a public health approach to promote information-sharing and health decisions, identifies information-sharing mechanisms used by providers to facilitate shared decisions and evaluates decision support processes designed to improve information-sharing and self-care events. Evidence is presented to guide future research directions.