Economic Evaluation of the DiAMOND Randomized Trial: Cost and Outcomes of 2 Decision Aids for Mode of Delivery among Women with a Previous Cesarean Section

Abstract

Background. Maternal preferences should be considered in decisions about mode of delivery following a previous cesarean, but risks and benefits are unclear. Decision aids can help decision making, although few studies have assessed costs in conjunction with effectiveness. Objective. Economic evaluation of 2 decision aids for women with 1 previous cesarean. Design. Cost-consequences analysis. Materials and Methods. Data sources were self-reported resource use and outcome and published national unit costs. The target population was women with 1 previous cesarean. The time horizon was 37 weeks’ gestation and 6 weeks postnatal. The perspective was health care delivery system. The interventions were usual care, usual care plus an information program, and usual care plus a decision analysis program. The outcome measures were costs to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), score on the Decisional Conflict Scale, and mode of delivery. Results of Main Analysis. Cost of delivery represented 84% of the total cost; mode of delivery was the most important determinant of cost differences across the groups. Mean (SD) total cost per mother and baby: 2033 (677) for usual care, 2069 (738) for information program, and 2019 (741) for decision analysis program. Decision aids reduced decisional conflict. Women using the decision analysis program had fewest cesarean deliveries. Results of Sensitivity Analysis. Applying a cost premium to emergency cesareans over electives had little effect on group comparisons. Conclusions were unaffected. Limitations. Disparity in timing of outcomes and costs, data completeness, and quality. Conclusions. Decision aids can reduce decisional conflict in women with a previous cesarean section when deciding on mode of delivery. The information program could be implemented at no extra cost to the NHS. The decision analysis program might reduce the rate of cesarean sections without any increase in costs

Keywords

. Key words: economic evaluation cost-consequences decision aid repeat cesarean section vaginal birth after cesarean.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

England & Wales Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press; 2001.

Information Centre Community Health Statistics. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2005-2006. National Statistics. London: Information Centre, 2006.

Martin JA , Hamilton BE , Menacker F. , Sutton PD , Matthews TJ Preliminary births for 2004: infant and maternal health. Available from: www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelimbirths04/prelimbirths04health.htm

Nassar N. , Sullivan E. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 1999. Sydney : Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit ; 2001.

Villar J. , Valladares E. , Wojdyla D. , et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367: 1819-29.

National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guideline 13. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence; 2004.

Emmett CL , Shaw ARG , Montgomery AA , Murphy DJ Women’s experience of decision-making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006;113:1438-45.

York S. , Briscoe L. , Walkinshaw S. , Lavender T. Why women choose to have a repeat caesarean section. Br J Midwifery. 2005; 13:440-5.

O’Connor AM , Stacey D. , Entwistle V. , et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2003;(1):CD001431.

10.

Murray E. , Davis H. , Tai SS , Coulter A. , Gray A. , Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. BMJ. 2001; 323:490-3.

11.

Murray E. , Davis H. , Tai SS , Coulter A. , Gray A. , Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ. 2001; 323:493-6.

12.

Kennedy AD , Sculpher MJ , Coulter A. , et al. Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2701-8.

13.

Montgomery A. , The DiAMOND study group. The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of next delivery among women with a previous caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2004;4:25-31.

14.

Emmett C. , Murphy D. , Patel R. , et al. Decision making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids. Health Expect. 2007;10:161-72.

15.

Montgomery AA , Emmett CE , Fahey T. , et al. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334:1305-9.

16.

Ottawa Health Decision Centre. User manual: decisional conflict scale(s). 2006. Available from: http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decisional_Conflict.pdf

17.

Curtis L. , Netten A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2005. Kent : PSSRU University of Kent; 2006 .

18.

Beale N. , Hollinghurst S. , Taylor G. , Gwynne M. , Peart C. , Straker-Cook D. The costs of care in general practice: patients compared by the council tax valuation band of their home address. Fam Pract. 2005;22:317-22.

19.

Salisbury C. , Chalder M. , Manku-Scott , et al. The National Evaluation of NHS Walk-in Centres: Final Report. Bristol: University of Bristol, 2002.

20.

Munro J. , Nicholl J. , O’Cathain A. , Knowles E. , Morgan A. An Evaluation of NHS Direct First Wave Sites: Final Report of the Phase 1 Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2001.

21.

Department of Health. National tariff 2005-06 . Available from: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4091529

22.

Department of Health. Reference cost index 2004. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4105545

23.

Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. Ed. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2005.

24.

van Buuren S. , Boshuizen HC , Knook DL Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1999;18:681-94.

25.

Frost J. , Shaw ARG , Montgomery AA , Murphy DJ Women’s views on the use of decision aids for decision-making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: qualitative interview study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. In press.

26.

James M. , Stokes E. Harnessing Information for Health Economics Analysis. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006 .

27.

Information Centre for Health and Social Care. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2004-05. London: The Information Centre; 2006.