Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35702061›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2022

A snapshot of women's and clinicians' perceptions of the double balloon catheter for induction of labor.

Sarah Waldron, Hannah Contziu, Olga Aleshin, Hala Phipps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Sarah WaldronRPA Women and Babies, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Hannah ContziuRPA Women and Babies, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Olga AleshinRPA Women and Babies, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Hala PhippsSydney Institute for Women, Children and their Families, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInduction of labor (IOL) is rising globally and is growing steadily in the state of New South Wales, Australia. There are numerous methods of induction of labor, including the double balloon catheter (DBC). There is minimal evidence on women's attitudes and experiences and clinician's opinions on the use of the DBC. This study aims to explore the views regarding DBC insertion and effectiveness from women induced with a DBC and clinicians involved in the catheter insertion and care.

methodsThis study is a descriptive survey of two prospective, de-identified, self-reported questionnaires which were completed in 2016. One questionnaire was administered to term pregnant women that were admitted to the antenatal ward post IOL, and the other was completed by midwives and obstetric doctors working in the ward at the time.

resultsThe DBC appeared to be a well-accepted method of cervical ripening among women (61%) and clinicians (>82%). Success of DBC to achieve an artificial rupture of membrane post removal, directly correlates to women's acceptance (61%). While most clinicians (59-67%) perceived insertion of DBC in an outpatient setting and then women discharged home was appropriate, only 13% of women were in favor. On the logistics of the procedure in respect to insertion and removal of the DBC, there were differences of opinion, with only 43% of women, 77% of midwives and 33% of doctors stating that the timing of insertion and removal needed to be improved.

conclusionsThis study highlights the need to undertake qualitative research to further explore women's views and perceptions on IOL in order to ensure that clinical practice is woman-centered and evidenced-based, and to guide policy and protocol.

Indexed as

cervical ripeningdouble-balloon catheterinduction of laborlabor and birthpregnant women

Identifiers

PMID35702061
PMCPMC9150372

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.