Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33478433›Full record

Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

OB Nest randomized controlled trial: a cost comparison of reduced visit compared to traditional prenatal care.

Regan N Theiler, Yvonne Butler-Tobah, Matthew A Hathcock, Abimbola Famuyide

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02082275 (Implementation and Evaluation of the OB Nest Project at the Point of Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02082275 nacompletednot on this map

Implementation and Evaluation of the OB Nest Project at the Point of Care: Redefining Continuity of Care for Expectant Mothers.

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2014 to 2015Enrolled300ConditionsPregnancyArmsOB Nest
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Perinatal Outcomes Among Patients Using OB Teleflex, A Hybrid Prenatal Telemedicine Program.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Regan N TheilerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Theiler.Regan@mayo.edu.
Yvonne Butler-TobahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Matthew A HathcockBiomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Abimbola FamuyideDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional prenatal care includes up to 13 in person office visits, and the cost of this care is not well-described. Alternative models are being explored to better meet the needs of patients and providers. OB Nest is a telemedicine-enhanced program with a reduced frequency of in-person prenatal visits. The cost implications of connected care services added to prenatal care packages are unclear.

methodsUsing data from the OB Nest randomized, controlled trial we analyzed the provider and staff time associated with prenatal care in the traditional and OB Nest models. Fewer visits were required for OB Nest, but given the compensatory increase in connected care activity and supplies, the actual cost difference is not known. Nursing and provider staff time was prospectively recorded for all patients enrolled in the OB Nest clinical trial. Published 2015 national wages for healthcare workers were used to calculate the actual labor cost of providing either traditional or OB Nest prenatal care in 2015 US dollars. Overhead expenses and opportunity costs were not considered.

resultsTotal provider cost was decreased caring for the OB Nest participants, but nursing cost was increased. OB Nest care required an average of 160.8 (+/- 45.0) minutes provider time and 237 (+/- 25.1) minutes nursing time, compared to 215.0 (+/- 71.6) and 99.6 (+/- 29.7) minutes for traditional prenatal care (P < 0.01). This translated into decreased provider cost and increased nursing cost (P < 0.01). Supply costs increased, travel costs declined, and overhead costs declined in the OB Nest model.

conclusionsIn this trial, labor cost for OB Nest prenatal care was 34% higher than for traditional prenatal care. The increased cost is largely attributable to additional nursing connected care time, and in some practice settings may be offset by decreased overhead costs and increased provider billing opportunities. Future efforts will be focused on development of digital solutions for some routine nursing tasks to decrease the overall cost of the model. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02082275 .

Indexed as

Economics, NursingAdultCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansMinnesotaNursing CarePregnancyPrenatal CareTelemedicineYoung AdultMidwiferyNestObstetricianObstetricsPregnancyPrenatalTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33478433
PMCPMC7818056

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.