Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30973919›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Exploring women's preferences for birth settings in England: A discrete choice experiment.

Benjamin Rupert Fletcher, Rachel Rowe, Jennifer Hollowell, Miranda Scanlon, Lisa Hinton, Oliver Rivero-Arias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Benjamin Rupert FletcherPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3633-7716
Rachel RowePolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2994-3240
Jennifer HollowellPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Miranda ScanlonBirthChoiceUK, London, United Kingdom.
Lisa HintonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Oliver Rivero-AriasPolicy Research Unit in Maternal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health BRC-1215-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore pregnant women's preferences for birth setting in England.

designLabelled discrete choice experiment (DCE).

settingOnline survey. SAMPLE: Pregnant women recruited through social media and an online panel.

methodsWe developed a DCE to assess women's preferences for four hypothetical birth settings based on seven attributes: reputation, continuity of care, distance from home, time to see a doctor, partner able to stay overnight, chance of straightforward birth and safety for baby. We used a mixed logit model, with setting modelled as an alternative-specific constant, and conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in attribute levels on uptake of birth settings.

main outcome measuresWomen's preferences for birth setting.

results257 pregnant women completed the DCE. All birth setting attributes, except 'time to see doctor', were significant in women's choice (p<0.05). There was significant heterogeneity in preferences for some attributes. Changes to levels for 'safety for the baby' and 'partner able to stay overnight' were associated with larger changes from baseline uptake of birth setting. If the preferences identified were translated into the real-world context up to a third of those who reported planning birth in an obstetric unit might choose a midwifery unit assuming universal access to all settings, and knowledge of the differences between settings.

conclusionsWe found that 'safety for the baby', 'chance of a straightforward birth' and 'can the woman's partner stay overnight following birth' were particularly important in women's preferences for hypothetical birth setting. If all birth settings were available to women and they were aware of the differences between them, it is likely that more low risk women who currently plan birth in OUs might choose a midwifery unit.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient PreferenceAdultBirth SettingEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMidwiferyPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30973919
PMCPMC6459528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.