ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Induction of labour during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey of impact on practice in the UK.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Pooled it
- Potential effects of Whatsapp on maternal health services uptake during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in Ghana.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Comparison of Modified Labor Induction Strategies for Pregnant Women at a Single Tertiary Center Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes Associated With Implementation of a COVID-19 Predelivery Screening Policy in a Taiwan Hospital.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Navigating uncertainty alone: A grounded theory analysis of women's psycho-social experiences of pregnancy and childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives · 2023Article
- Clinicians' perspectives and experiences of providing cervical ripening at home or in-hospital in the United Kingdom.PloS one · 2023Article
- Pre and Post-Lockdown Cesarean Deliveries and Perinatal Quality Indicators During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Delaware journal of public health · 2022Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is one of the most commonly performed interventions in maternity care, with outpatient cervical ripening increasingly offered as an option for women undergoing IOL. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the context of practice and the option of returning home for cervical ripening may now assume greater significance. This work aimed to examine whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed practice around IOL in the UK.
methodWe used an online questionnaire to survey senior obstetricians and midwives at all 156 UK NHS Trusts and Boards that currently offer maternity services. Responses were analysed to produce descriptive statistics, with free text responses analysed using a conventional content analysis approach.
findingsResponses were received from 92 of 156 UK Trusts and Boards, a 59% response rate. Many Trusts and Boards reported no change to their IOL practice, however 23% reported change in methods used for cervical ripening; 28% a change in criteria for home cervical ripening; 28% stated that more women were returning home during cervical ripening; and 24% noted changes to women's response to recommendations for IOL. Much of the change was reported as happening in response to attempts to minimise hospital attendance and restrictions on birth partners accompanying women.
conclusionsThe pandemic has changed practice around induction of labour, although this varied significantly between NHS Trusts and Boards. There is a lack of formal evidence to support decision-making around outpatient cervical ripening: the basis on which changes were implemented and what evidence was used to inform decisions is not clear.
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.