Media Representations of Breech Birth: A Prospective Analysis of Web-Based News Reports

© 2017 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives Introduction: Recent research has demonstrated that the media presentation of childbirth is highly medicalized, often portraying birth as risky and dramatic. Media representation of breech presentation and birth is unexplored in this context. This study aimed to explore the content and tone of news media reports relating to breech presentation and breech birth. Methods: Google alerts were created using the terms breech and breech birth in online English-language news sites over a 3-year period from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015. Alerts were received daily and filed for analysis, and data were analyzed to generate themes. Results: A total of 138 web-based news reports were gathered from 9 countries. Five themes that arose from the data included the problem of breech presentation, the high drama of vaginal breech birth, the safe option of cesarean birth versus dangers of vaginal breech birth, the defiant mother versus the saintly mother, and vaginal breech birth and medical misadventure. Discussion: Media reports in this study predominantly demonstrated negative views toward breech presentation and vaginal breech birth. Cesarean birth was portrayed as the safe option for breech birth, while vaginal breech birth was associated with poor outcomes. Media presentations may impact decision making about mode of birth for pregnant women with a breech fetus. Health care providers can play an important role in balancing the media depiction of planned vaginal breech birth by providing nonjudgmental, evidence-based information to such women to facilitate informed decision making for birth

Birth after caesarean study – planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat caesarean for women at term with a single previous caesarean birth: protocol for a patient preference study and randomised trial

Background: For women who have a caesarean section in their preceding pregnancy, two care policies for birth are considered standard: planned vaginal birth and planned elective repeat caesarean. Currently available information about the benefits and harms of both forms of care are derived from retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There have been no randomised trials, and recognising the deficiencies in the literature, there have been calls for methodologically rigorous studies to assess maternal and infant health outcomes associated with both care policies. The aims of our study are to assess in women with a previous caesarean birth, who are eligible in the subsequent pregnancy for a vaginal birth, whether a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean compared with a policy of planned repeat caesarean affects the risk of serious complications for the woman and her infant. Methods/Design Design: Multicentred patient preference study and a randomised clinical trial. Inclusion Criteria: Women with a single prior caesarean presenting in their next pregnancy with a single, live fetus in cephalic presentation, who have reached 37 weeks gestation, and who do not have a contraindication to a planned VBAC. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible women will be given an information sheet during pregnancy, and will be recruited to the study from 37 weeks gestation after an obstetrician has confirmed eligibility for a planned vaginal birth. Written informed consent will be obtained. Women who consent to the patient preference study will be allocated their preference for either planned VBAC or planned, elective repeat caesarean. Women who consent to the randomised trial will be randomly allocated to either the planned vaginal birth after caesarean or planned elective repeat caesarean group. Treatment Groups: Women in the planned vaginal birth group will await spontaneous onset of labour whilst appropriate. Women in the elective repeat caesarean group will have this scheduled for between 38 and 40 weeks. Primary Study Outcome: Serious adverse infant outcome (death or serious morbidity). Sample Size: 2314 women in the patient preference study to show a difference in adverse neonatal outcome from 1.6% to 3.6% (p = 0.05, 80% power).Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Janet E Hiller, Ross R Haslam and Jeffrey S Robinso

Spontaneous Heterotopic Triplet Pregnancy With Tubal Rupture

The recent increase in heterotopic pregnancies has been largely attributed to the increased use of assisted reproduction technologies. We report the rare case of a multiparous woman with a spontaneous conception resulting in a triplet heterotopic pregnancy: a twin intrauterine pregnancy and a single right tubal ectopic pregnancy. Heterotopic pregnancy is a rare and potentially life-threatening condition in which simultaneous gestations occur at 2 or more implantation sites. It is infrequent in natural conception cycles, occurring in 1:30 000 pregnancies. However, the prevalence is rising with the increased use of assisted reproduction techniques to that of 1:100 to 1:500 in these patient subgroups, highlighting the need to incorporate it into a clinician’s diagnostic algorithm

Why 'down under' is a cut above: a comparison of rates of and reasons for caesarean section in England and Australia

Background Most studies examining determinants of rising rates of caesarean section have examined patterns in documented reasons for caesarean over time in a single location. Further insights could be gleaned from cross-cultural research that examines practice patterns in locations with disparate rates of caesarean section at a single time point. Methods We compared both rates of and main reason for pre-labour and intrapartum caesarean between England and Queensland, Australia, using data from retrospective cross-sectional surveys of women who had recently given birth in England (n = 5,250) and Queensland (n = 3,467). Results Women in Queensland were more likely to have had a caesarean birth (36.2%) than women in England (25.1% of births; OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.61), after adjustment for obstetric characteristics. Between-country differences were found for rates of pre-labour caesarean (21.2% vs. 12.2%) but not for intrapartum caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Compared to women in England, women in Queensland with a history of caesarean were more likely to have had a pre-labour caesarean and more likely to have had an intrapartum caesarean, due only to a previous caesarean. Among women with no previous caesarean, Queensland women were more likely than women in England to have had a caesarean due to suspected disproportion and failure to progress in labour. Conclusions The higher rates of caesarean birth in Queensland are largely attributable to higher rates of caesarean for women with a previous caesarean, and for the main reason of having had a previous caesarean. Variation between countries may be accounted for by the absence of a single, comprehensive clinical guideline for caesarean section in Queensland. Keywords: Caesarean section; Childbirth; Pregnancy; Cross-cultural comparison; Vaginal birth after caesarean; Previous caesarean section; Patient-reported data; Quality improvemen