Trial reportBMC health services research2014
Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.
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.
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.
Prostaglandin Insert (Propess) Versus Trans-cervical Balloon Catheter for Out-patient Labour Induction: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Feasibility
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outpatient or Inpatient Setting for Cervical Ripening Before Induction of Labour: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Pooled it
- Inpatient vaginal dinoprostone vs outpatient balloon catheters for cervical ripening in induction of labor: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Outpatient elective induction of labour at 39 weeks' gestation (HOME INDUCTION): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase III, non-inferiority trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of outpatient with inpatient mifepristone usage for cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023Article
- A snapshot of women's and clinicians' perceptions of the double balloon catheter for induction of labor.European journal of midwifery · 2022Article
- Article
- A Tribute to Nancy C. Chescheir, MD.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Outpatient Induction of Labor - Are Balloon Catheters an Appropriate Method?Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2021Article
- Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; a two-year cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Trading patients' choice in providers for quality of maternity care? A discrete choice experiment amongst pregnant women.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.