ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Parturients' Stated Preferences for Labor Analgesia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Relationship between labour analgesia modalities and types of anaesthetic techniques in categories 2 and 3 intrapartum caesarean deliveries.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to investigate the extent to which treatment benefits, risks and costs affected parturients' preferences for labor analgesia. Methods: We recruited 248 healthy parturients prior to labor at an antenatal ward and administered a discrete choice experiment survey. Parturients were asked to choose among four hypothetical forms of labor analgesia: epidural analgesia, pethidine, Entonox and no analgesia, which were defined by: pain score, duration of second stage of labor, risks of instrumental delivery, back pain and permanent nerve injury, and out-of-pocket cost. We used mixed logit model to calculate the relative importance of each attribute (out of 100). Results: Parturients preferred receiving labor analgesia over not receiving analgesia and those who had positive past experience with epidural preferred epidural over other modalities. Out-of-pocket cost (28%), duration of second stage of labor (26%) and pain score following treatment (18%) were the most important attributes. Conclusion: Out-of-pocket cost was a major concern. Parturients prioritized having lower pain and shorter labor experience over risks associated with epidural analgesia. Parturients should be presented with realistic range of risks of side-effects so that they can decide how to balance risks against benefits and costs associated with child labor.
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.