Caesarean section and subsequent pregnancy outcome: a Danish register-based cohort study

Background and Aims: Caesarean section rates have increased in recent decades and the effects on subsequent pregnancy outcome are largely unknown. Prior research has hypothesised that Caesarean section delivery may lead to an increased risk of subsequent stillbirth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and sub-fertility. Structure and Methods: Papers 1-3 are systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Papers 4-6 are findings from this thesis on the rate of subsequent stillbirth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and live birth by mode of delivery. Results Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A 23% increased odds of subsequent stillbirth; no increase in odds of subsequent ectopic pregnancy and a 10% reduction in the odds of subsequent live birth among women with a previous Caesarean section were found in the various meta-analyses. Danish cohorts: Results from the Danish Civil Registration System (CRS) cohort revealed a small increased rate of subsequent stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy among women with a primary Caesarean section, which remained in the analyses by type of Caesarean. No increased rate of miscarriage was found among women with a primary Caesarean section. In the CRS data, women with a primary Caesarean section had a significantly reduced rate of subsequent live birth particularly among women with primary elective and maternal-requested Caesarean sections. In the Aarhus Birth Cohort, overall the effect of mode of delivery on the rate and time to next live birth was minimal. Conclusions: Primary Caesarean section was associated with a small increased rate of stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy, which may be in part due to underlying medical conditions. No increased rate of miscarriage was found. A reduced rate of subsequent live birth was found among Caesarean section in the CRS data. In the smaller ABC cohort, a small reduction in rate of subsequent live birth was found among women with a primary Caesarean section and is most likely due to maternal choice rather than any ill effects of the Caesarean. The findings of this study, the largest and most comprehensive to date will be of significant interest to health care providers and women globally.

The effectiveness of using patient-reported outcome measures as quality improvement tools

Aim: To investigate the value of using PROMs as quality improvement tools. Methods: Two systematic reviews were undertaken. The first reviewed the quantitative literature on the impact of PROMs feedback and the second reviewed the qualitative literature on the use of PROMs in practice. These reviews informed the focus of the primary research. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PROFILE) examined the impact of providing peer benchmarked PROMs feedback to consultant orthopaedic surgeons on improving outcomes for hip replacement surgery. Qualitative interviews with surgeons in the intervention arm of the trial examined the view of and reactions to the feedback. Results: The quantitative review of 17 studies found weak evidence to suggest that providing PROMs feedback to professionals improves patient outcomes. The qualitative review of 16 studies identified the barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs based on four themes: practical considerations, attitudes towards the data, methodological concerns and the impact of feedback on care. The PROFILE trial included 11 surgeons and 215 patients in the intervention arm, and 10 surgeons and 217 patients in the control arm. The trial found no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score between the arms (-0.7, 95% CI -1.9-0.5, p=0.2). Interviews with surgeons revealed mixed opinions about the value of the PROMs feedback and the information did not promote explicit changes to their practice. Conclusion: It is important to use PROMs which have been validated for the specific purpose of performance measurement, consult with professionals when developing a PROMs feedback intervention, communicate with professionals about the objectives of the data collection, educate professionals on the properties and interpretation of the data, and support professionals in using the information to improve care. It is also imperative that the burden of data collection and dissemination of the information is minimised.