Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Mode of delivery in the context of periviable birth: informed deference and shared decision-making

Journal of Perinatology volume 43, pages 23–28 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

To qualitatively evaluate women’s perspectives on shared decision-making for periviable (22–25 weeks’ gestational age) mode of delivery (MOD).

Study Design

Interviews were conducted at two Midwestern academic hospitals with 30 women hospitalized for threatened periviable delivery between September 2016 and January 2018. Prior to delivery (T1) and at 3-months postpartum (T2), MOD-related decision-making was explored using prompts. Interviews were coded and analyzed using NVivo 12.

Result

The majority of women perceived the MOD options as cesarean section or vaginal delivery. Most ultimately preferred “whatever’s best for baby.” Understanding of MOD risks was limited, and physicians recommended each option equally. Sixteen participants perceived themselves as decision-makers at T1, while at T2, only nine participants identified themselves as such.

Conclusion

Informed deference is introduced as a novel concept in the setting of periviable MOD decision-making, whereby the mother defers decisional authority to the provider, the baby, a higher power, or the circumstance itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed in the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Periviable birth. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 6. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:187–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bell EF, Hintz SR, Hansen NI, Bann CM, Wyckoff MH, DeMauro SB, et al. Mortality, in-hospital morbidity, care practices, and 2-year outcomes for extremely preterm infants in the US, 2013-2018. JAMA 2022;327:248–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haward MF, John LK, Lorenz JM, Fischhoff B. Effects of description of options on parental perinatal decision-making. Pediatrics 2012;129:891–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guillén Ú, Mackley A, Laventhal N, Kukora S, Christ L, Derrick M, et al. Evaluating the use of a decision aid for parents facing extremely premature delivery: a randomized trial. J Pediatr. 2019;209:52–60.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Martinez AM, Weiss E, Partridge JC, Freeman H, Kilpatrick S. Management of extremely low birth weight infants: perceptions of viability and parental counseling practices. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:520–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Geurtzen R, van Heijst AFJ, Draaisma JMT, Kuijpers LJMK, Woiski M, Scheepers HCJ, et al. Development of nationwide recommendations to support prenatal counseling in extreme prematurity. Pediatrics 2019;143:e20183253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Srinivas SK. Periviable births: communication and counseling before delivery. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37:426–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mercer BM. Mode of delivery for periviable birth. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37:417–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raju TNK, Mercer BM, Burchfield DJ, Joseph GF. Periviable birth: executive summary of a Joint Workshop by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. J Perinatol J Calif Perinat Assoc. 2014;34:333–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gluck O, Tairy D, Bar J, Barda G. The impact of mode of delivery on neonatal outcome in preterm births. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2021;34:1183–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Med Can. 2007;176:455–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rm S, Mb L, Dj R, Kj L, Cy S, Ea T. Cesarean Deliv Matern Req. 2019;133:5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arzuaga BH, Cummings CL. Deliveries at extreme prematurity: outcomes, approaches, institutional variation, and uncertainty. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2019;31:182–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kawakita T, Sondheimer T, Jelin A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, et al. Maternal morbidity by attempted route of delivery in periviable birth. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2021;34:1241–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Clements KM, Barfield WD, Ayadi MF, Wilber N. Preterm birth–associated cost of early intervention services: an analysis by gestational age. Pediatrics 2007;119:e866–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Halperin ME, Moore DC, Hannah WJ. Classical versus low-segment transverse incision for preterm caesarean section: maternal complications and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;95:990–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Armstrong C. ACOG Updates Recommendations on Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. 3.

  18. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Levenstein J. The Patient-centred general practice consultation. 2012;

  20. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Begley K, Daly D, Panda S, Begley C. Shared decision-making in maternity care: Acknowledging and overcoming epistemic defeaters. J Eval Clin Pr. 2019;25:1113–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tucker Edmonds B, Laitano T, Hoffman SM, Jeffries E, Fadel W, Bhamidipalli SS, et al. The impact of decision quality on mental health following periviable delivery. J Perinatol J Calif Perinat Assoc. 2019;39:1595–601.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jager S, Kavanaugh K, Hoffman S, Laitano T, Jeffries E, Tucker Edmonds B. Parents’ descriptions of neonatal palliation as a treatment option prior to periviable delivery. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2020;34:178–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dyar KL. Qualitative inquiry in nursing: Creating rigor. Nurs Forum (Auckl). 2022;57:187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE, (Eds.). Applied thematic analysis. In Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17:285–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1982. 1997;44:681–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Grobman WA, Kavanaugh K, Moro T, DeRegnier RA, Savage T. Providing advice to parents for women at acutely high risk of periviable delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:904–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Attanasio LB, Kozhimannil KB, Kjerulff KH. Factors influencing women’s perceptions of shared decision making during labor and delivery: Results from a large-scale cohort study of first childbirth. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:1130–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lavrakas P. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. 2022 Jun; Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods.

  32. Kramer M, Hogue C. What causes racial disparities in very preterm birth? A biosocial perspective. Epidemiol Rev. 2009

  33. MacDorman MF, Kirmeyer S. Fetal and perinatal mortality, United States, 2005. Natl Vital- Stat Rep. Cent Dis Control Prev Natl Cent Health Stat Natl Vital- Stat Syst. 2009;57:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital- Stat Rep. Cent Dis Control Prev Natl Cent Health Stat Natl Vital- Stat Syst. 2015;64:1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman M. Births in the United States, 2020. NCHS Data Brief. 2021;(418):1-8.

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the NIH as a R21 Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (HD089032-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Leah M. Bode & Shannon M. Jager

  2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Janet Panoch, Shelley M. Hoffman, Tatiana Laitano & Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds

  3. Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Karen Kavanaugh

  4. College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Karen Kavanaugh

Authors
  1. Leah M. Bode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shannon M. Jager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janet Panoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shelley M. Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatiana Laitano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karen Kavanaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BTE and KK contributed to the study concept, design, analysis, and writing of this manuscript. KK served as an advisor to BTE. SMJ, LMB, SMH, and TL contributed to the recruitment, data management, analysis, and writing of the manuscript. JP contributed to analysis and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bode, L.M., Jager, S.M., Panoch, J. et al. Mode of delivery in the context of periviable birth: informed deference and shared decision-making. J Perinatol 43, 23–28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01537-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01537-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links