Exploring the Value of Waiting During Labor

References

• Albers LL (1999) The duration of labor in healthy women. J. Perinatology: Official J. California Perinatal Assoc. 19(2):114–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2015) Frequently asked questions labor, delivery and postpartum care. Technical report, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 210(3):179–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caruana R, Niculescu RS, Rao RB, Simms C (2003) Evaluating the C-section rate of different physician practices: Using machine learning to model standard practice. Amer. Medical Informatics Assoc. Annual Sympos. Proc., 135–139.Google Scholar
• Cesario SK (2004) Reevaluation of Friedman’s labor curve: A pilot study. J. Obstetric, Gynecologic, Neonatal Nursing: JOGNN/NAACOG 33(6):713–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng YW, Delaney SS, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB (2009) The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 201(5):477.e1–477.e7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi T-M, Li D, Yan H (2003) Optimal two-stage ordering policy with Bayesian information updating. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 54(8):846–859.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi T-M, Li D, Yan H (2004) Optimal single ordering policy with multiple delivery modes and Bayesian information updates. Comput. Oper. Res. 31(12):1965–1984.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahan MH, Dahan S (2005) Fetal weight, maternal age and height are poor predictors of the need for caesarean section for arrest of labor. Arch. Gynecology Obstetrics 273(1):20–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, Damush TM, Carney MF, Pearson M, Kahn KL (1996) Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analysis. Health Psych.: Official J. Division Health Psych., Amer. Psych. Assoc. 15(4):303–314.Google Scholar
• Emmett CL, Murphy DJ, Patel RR, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts IW, Gregor Pet al. (2007) Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous Caesarean section: Development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids. Health Expectations: Internat. J. Public Participation Health Care Health Policy 10(2):161–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feghali M, Timofeev J, Huang C-C, Driggers R, Miodovnik M, Landy HJ, Umans JG (2015) Preterm induction of labor: Predictors of vaginal delivery and labor curves. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 212(1):91.e1–7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forsyth M (1997) The economics of site investigation for groundwater protection: Sequential decision making under uncertainty. J. Environment. Econom. Management 34(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman EA (1954) The graphic analysis of labor. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 68(6):1568–1575.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, Landon MB, Simpson JL, Driscoll DA (2012) Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM, Ananth CV (2006) Previous Cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstetrics Gynecology 107(4):771–778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghaffarzadegan N, Epstein AJ, Martin EG (2013) Practice variation, bias, and experiential learning in cesarean delivery: A data-based system dynamics approach. Health Services Res. 48(2-part-2):713–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gombolay M, Golen T, Shah N, Shah J (2017) Queueing theoretic analysis of labor and delivery understanding management styles and C-section rates. Health Care Management Sci., https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10729-017-9418-2.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M (2012) Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: Whose risks? Whose benefits? Amer. J. Perinatology 29(1):7–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, Janik Ret al. (2010) Vaginal birth after cesarean: New insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, No. 191, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
• Harlow BL, Frigoletto FD, Cramer DW, Evans JK, Bain RP, Ewigman B, McNellis D (1995) Epidemiologic predictors of cesarean section in nulliparous patients at low risk. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 172(1):156–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Roehl Ka, Zhao Q, Cahill AG (2012) Normal progress of induced labor. Obstetrics Gynecology 119(6):1113–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hicklin K (2016) Decision models for mode of delivery combining patient and clinician risk perceptions and preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
• Hicklin K, Ivy J, Kulkarni V, Myers E, Viswanathan M (2014) Simulation of labor: A study of the relationship between Cesarean section rates and the time spent in labor. Tolk A, Diallo SY, Ryzhov IO, Yilmaz L, Buckley S, Miller JA, eds. Proc. 2014 Winter Simulation Conf. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Savannah, GA), 1269–1280.Google Scholar
• Lindell G, Maršál K, Källén K (2013) Predicting risk for large-for-gestational age neonates at term: A population-based Bayesian theorem study. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecology: Official J. Internat. Soc. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecology 41(4):398–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liston FA, Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Jangaard KA (2008) Neonatal outcomes with caesarean delivery at term. Arch. Disease Childhood. Fetal Neonatal Edition 93(3):F176–F182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mankuta DD, Leshno MM, Menasche MM, Brezis MM (2003) Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Trial of labor or repeat cesarean section? A decision analysis. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 189(3):714–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK (2016) Births in the United States, 2015. NCHS Data Brief 2015(258):1–8.Google Scholar
• Miller Da, Chollet Ja, Goodwin TM (1997) Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 177(1):210–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris H DeGroot (1970) Optimal Statistical Decisions (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ (1995) Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: Influence of timing of elective caesarean section. British J. Obstetrics Gynaecology 102(2):101–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pitkin RM (2003) Classic articles. Obstetrics Gynecology 101(2):216.Google Scholar
• Schechter CB (1990a) Sequential decision making with continuous disease states and measurements: I. Theory. Medical Decision Making 10(4):242–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schechter CB (1990b) Sequential decision making with continuous disease states and measurements: II. Application to diastolic blood pressure. Medical Decision Making 10(4):256–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sims CJ, Meyn L, Caruana R, Rao RB, Mitchell T, Krohn M (1997) Predicting cesarean delivery with decision tree models. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 183(5):1198–1206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith GCS, Dellens M, White IR, Pell JP (2004) Combined logistic and Bayesian modeling of cesarean section risk. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 191(6):2029–2034.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith GCS, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R (2005) Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS Medicine 2(9):0871–0878.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solheim KN, Esakoff TF, Little SE, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB (2011) The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J. Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Medicine 24(11):1341–1346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taskin S, Lodree EJ (2010) A Bayesian decision model with hurricane forecast updates for emergency supplies inventory management. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62(6):1098–1108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vahratian A, Troendle JF, Siega-Riz AM, Zhang J (2006) Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology 20(1):72–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wald A (1950) Statistical decision functions. Ann. Math. Statist. 20(2):165–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu X, Ivy JS, Patel DA, Patel SN, Smith DG, Ransom SB, Fenner Det al. (2010) Pelvic floor consequences of Cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth. J. Women’s Health 19(1):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang YS, Hur MH, Kim SY (2013) Risk factors of cesarean delivery at prenatal care, admission and during labor in low-risk pregnancy: Multivariate logistic regression analysis. J. Obstetrics Gynaecology Res. 39(1):96–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zanardo V, Simbi AK, Franzoi M, Solda G, Salvadori A, Trevisanuto D (2004) Neonatal respiratory morbidity risk and mode of delivery at term: Influence of timing of elective caesarean delivery. Acta Paediatrica 93(5):643–647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W (2010b) The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstetrics Gynecology 115(4):705–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, Hatjis CGet al. (2010a) Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstetrics Gynecology 116(6):1281–1287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM, Laughon SK, Branch DW, Burkman R, Landy HJet al. (2010c) Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 203(4):326.e1–326.e10.Crossref, Google Scholar