Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33874913›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Induction of labour during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey of impact on practice in the UK.

M Harkness, C Yuill, H Cheyne, S J Stock, C McCourt, CHOICE Study Consortia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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.

M HarknessNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit (NMHAP-RU), University of Stirling, Pathfoot Building, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK. mairi.harkness@stir.ac.uk.
C YuillCentre for Maternal and Child Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddleton Street, London, EC1R 1UB, UK.
H CheyneNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit (NMHAP-RU), University of Stirling, Pathfoot Building, Stirling, FK9 4NF, UK.
S J StockUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh NINE Edinburgh BioQuarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.
C McCourtCentre for Maternal and Child Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddleton Street, London, EC1R 1UB, UK.
CHOICE Study Consortia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelCervical RipeningCOVID-19Critical PathwaysLabor, InducedAdultAmbulatory CareClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansInfection ControlMaternal Health ServicesOrganizational InnovationPolicy MakingPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesCervical ripeningChoiceCOVID-19Induction of labour

Identifiers

PMID33874913
PMCPMC8054234

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.