Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making Choices for Childbirth: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision‐aid for Informed Birth after Cesareana

Shorten, Allison, Shorten, Brett, Keogh, John, West, Sandra, Morris, Jonathan·2005·Birth

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Decision‐making about mode of birth after a cesarean delivery presents challenges to women and their caregivers and requires a balance of risks and benefits according to individual circumstances. The study objective was to determine whether a decision‐aid for women who have experienced previous cesarean birth facilitates informed decision‐making about birth options during a subsequent pregnancy. Method:A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial of 227 pregnant women was conducted within 3 prenatal clinics and 3 private obstetric practices in New South Wales, Australia. Women with 1 previous cesarean section and medically eligible for trial of vaginal birth were recruited at 12 to 18 weeks’ gestation; 115 were randomized to the intervention group and 112 to the control group. A decision‐aid booklet describing risks and benefits of elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor was given to intervention group women at 28 weeks’ gestation. Main outcome measures included level of knowledge, decisional conflict score, women's preference for mode of birth, and recorded mode of birth. Results:Women who received the decision‐aid demonstrated a significantly greater increase in mean knowledge scores than the control group (increasing by 2.17 vs 0.42 points on a 15‐point scale)(p < 0.001, 95% CI for difference = 1.15–2.35). The intervention group demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict score (p < 0.05). The decision‐aid did not significantly affect the rate of uptake of trial of labor or elective repeat cesarean section. Preferences expressed at 36 weeks were not consistent with actual birth outcomes for many women. Conclusion:A decision‐aid for women facing choices about birth after cesarean section is effective in improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. However, little evide nce suggested that this process led to an informed choice. Strategies are required to better equip organizations and practitioners to empower women so that they can translate informed preferences into practice. Further work needs to examine ways to enhance women's power in decision‐making within the doctor‐patient relationship. (BIRTH 32:4 December 2005)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Shorten, A., Shorten, B., Keogh, J., West, S., & Morris, J.
Venue
Birth
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11-25
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
252-261
ISSN
  • 0730-7659 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-536X
OpenAlex
W1980315206
Cited by
173
References
1
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making Choices for Childbirth: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision‐aid for Informed Birth after Cesareana. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x
The paper
Shorten, A., Shorten, B., Keogh, J., West, S., & Morris, J. (2005). Making Choices for Childbirth: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision‐aid for Informed Birth after Cesareana. Birth. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.