Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25073486›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2014

Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.

Kirsten Howard, Karen Gerard, Pamela Adelson, Robert Bryce, Chris Wilkinson, Deborah Turnbull

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03199820 (Prostaglandin Insert), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03199820 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Prostaglandin Insert (Propess) Versus Trans-cervical Balloon Catheter for Out-patient Labour Induction: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Feasibility

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt George's, University of LondonRan2017 to 2019Enrolled120ConditionsChildbirth Problems, Labor ComplicationArmsCook cervical balloon, Prostin E2 Vaginal Suppository
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of outpatient with inpatient mifepristone usage for cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Tribute to Nancy C. Chescheir, MD.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kirsten HowardSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. kirsten.howard@sydney.edu.au.
Karen Gerard
Pamela Adelson
Robert Bryce
Chris Wilkinson
Deborah Turnbull
University of Adelaide · AUBoston Children's Hospital · USFlinders Medical Centre · AUUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries a high proportion of births begin as induced labours. Induction can be lengthy if cervical priming is required prior to induction. This usually occurs as an inpatient, however, an alternative is to allow women to go home after satisfactory fetal monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of women for cervical priming for induction of labour in an outpatient or inpatient setting.

methodA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted alongside a randomised trial of inpatient and outpatient cervical priming (the OPRA trial) in two maternity hospitals in South Australia. 362 participants were included, and women's preferences for cervical priming for induction of labour were assessed.

resultsWomen were willing to accept an extra 1.4 trips to hospital (2.4 trips total) and a total travel time of 73.3 minutes to be able to return to their own home while waiting for the priming to work. For enhanced inpatient services, women were willing to accept a total travel time of 54.7 minutes to have a private room with private bathroom while waiting for the priming to work. The overall benefit score for outpatient priming was 3.63, 3.59 for enhanced inpatient care and 2.89 for basic inpatient care, suggesting slightly greater preferences for outpatient priming. Preferences for outpatient priming increased when women could return to their own home (compared to other offsite accommodation), and decreased with more trips to hospital and longer travel time.

conclusionsOur results suggest that outpatient priming was slightly more preferred than either enhanced inpatient priming or basic care; these results should be confirmed in different clinical settings. There may be merit in providing women information about both options in the future, as preferences varied according to the characteristics of the services on offer and the sociodemographic background of the woman.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareCervical RipeningChoice BehaviorHospitalizationPatient PreferenceAdultFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, MaternityHumansLabor, InducedPilot ProjectsPregnancySouth AustraliaTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25073486
PMCPMC4128401
OpenAlexW2019427930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.