ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012
Risk assessment and decision making about in-labour transfer from rural maternity care: a social judgment and signal detection analysis.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying and enhancing risk thresholds in the detection of elder financial abuse: a signal detection analysis of professionals' decision making.BMC medical education · 2014Trial
- Determinants of Physicians' Referrals for Suspected Cancer Given a Risk-Prediction Algorithm: Linking Signal Detection and Fuzzy Trace Theory.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Decision threshold models in medical decision making: a scoping literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Association of personal and systemic factors on intrapartum risk perception and obstetric intervention rates: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
- Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Pregnancy related risk perception in pregnant women, midwives & doctors: a cross-sectional survey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- Factors influencing the clinical decision-making of midwives: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Open, trusting relationships underpin safety in rural maternity a hermeneutic phenomenology study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
- Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Observational
- Duration and urgency of transfer in births planned at home and in freestanding midwifery units in England: secondary analysis of the birthplace national prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of respecting women's wishes to give birth close to their local community is supported by policy in many developed countries. However, persistent concerns about the quality and safety of maternity care in rural communities have been expressed. Safe childbirth in rural communities depends on good risk assessment and decision making as to whether and when the transfer of a woman in labour to an obstetric led unit is required. This is a difficult decision. Wide variation in transfer rates between rural maternity units have been reported suggesting different decision making criteria may be involved; furthermore, rural midwives and family doctors report feeling isolated in making these decisions and that staff in urban centres do not understand the difficulties they face. In order to develop more evidence based decision making strategies greater understanding of the way in which maternity care providers currently make decisions is required. This study aimed to examine how midwives working in urban and rural settings and obstetricians make intrapartum transfer decisions, and describe sources of variation in decision making.
methodsThe study was conducted in three stages. 1. 20 midwives and four obstetricians described factors influencing transfer decisions. 2. Vignettes depicting an intrapartum scenario were developed based on stage one data. 3. Vignettes were presented to 122 midwives and 12 obstetricians who were asked to assess the level of risk in each case and decide whether to transfer or not. Social judgment analysis was used to identify the factors and factor weights used in assessment. Signal detection analysis was used to identify participants' ability to distinguish high and low risk cases and personal decision thresholds.
resultsWhen reviewing the same case information in vignettes midwives in different settings and obstetricians made very similar risk assessments. Despite this, a wide range of transfer decisions were still made, suggesting that the main source of variation in decision making and transfer rates is not in the assessment but the personal decision thresholds of clinicians.
conclusionsCurrently health care practice focuses on supporting or improving decision making through skills training and clinical guidelines. However, these methods alone are unlikely to be effective in improving consistency of decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.