ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
Variation in clinical decision-making for induction of labour: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perinatal mortality among term births: Informing decisions about singleton early term births in Western Australia.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Association of personal and systemic factors on intrapartum risk perception and obstetric intervention rates: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- The Multifocal Pathway: A Pilot Study of a Trainee-Led Multifocal Intraocular Lens Protocol in a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Australia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Midwives' perspectives of intravenous fluid management and fluid balance documentation in labour: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
- Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Induction of labor: reviewing the past to improve the future.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnexplained variation in induction of labour (IOL) rates exist between hospitals, even after accounting for casemix and hospital differences. We aimed to explore factors that influence clinical decision-making for IOL that may be contributing to the variation in IOL rates between hospitals.
methodsWe undertook a qualitative study involving semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with obstetricians and midwives. Using purposive sampling, participants known to have diverse opinions on IOL were selected from ten Australian maternity hospitals (based on differences in hospital IOL rate, size, location and case-mix complexities). Transcripts were indexed, coded, and analysed using the Framework Approach to identify main themes and subthemes.
resultsForty-five participants were interviewed (21 midwives, 24 obstetric medical staff). Variations in decision-making for IOL were based on the obstetrician's perception of medical risk in the pregnancy (influenced by the obstetrician's personality and knowledge), their care relationship with the woman, how they involved the woman in decision-making, and resource availability. The role of a 'gatekeeper' in the procedural aspects of arranging an IOL also influenced decision-making. There was wide variation in the clinical decision-making practices of obstetricians and less accountability for decision-making in hospitals with a high IOL rate, with the converse occurring in hospitals with low IOL rates.
conclusionImproved communication, standardised risk assessment and accountability for IOL offer potential for reducing variation in hospital IOL rates.
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.