Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2019
Does comparing cesarean delivery rates influence women's choice of obstetric hospital?
Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020).PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of an educational program and decision tool on choice of maternity hospital: the delivery decisions randomized clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Trial
- Perceived Importance of Obstetric Quality Measures to Veterans Receiving Community-Based Obstetric Care.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Use of and Attitudes About Telelactation Services among New Parents.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2023Article
- Changes in Breastfeeding and Lactation Support Experiences During COVID.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDespite public reporting of wide variation in hospital cesarean delivery rates, few women access this information when deciding where to deliver. We hypothesized that making cesarean delivery rate data more easily accessible and understandable would increase the likelihood of women selecting a hospital with a low cesarean delivery rate. STUDY
designWe conducted a randomized controlled trial of 18,293 users of the Ovia Health mobile apps in 2016-2017. All enrollees were given an explanation of cesarean delivery rate data, and those randomized to the intervention group were also given an interactive tool that presented those data for the 10 closest hospitals with obstetric services. Our outcome measures were enrollees' self-reported delivery hospital and views on cesarean delivery rates.
methodsIntent-to-treat analysis using 2-sided Pearson's χ2 tests.
resultsThere was no significant difference across the experimental groups in the proportion of women who selected hospitals with low cesarean delivery rates (7.0% control vs 6.8% intervention; P = .54). Women in the intervention group were more likely to believe that hospitals in their community had differing cesarean delivery rates (66.9% vs 55.9%; P <.001) and to report that they looked at cesarean delivery rates when choosing their hospital (44.5% vs 33.9%; P <.001).
conclusionsProviding women with an interactive tool to compare cesarean delivery rates across hospitals in their community improved women's familiarity with variation in cesarean delivery rates but did not increase their likelihood of selecting hospitals with lower rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30763041PMC6456810W2996764592What 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.