ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Antenatal cardiotocography in primary midwife-led care: a budget impact analysis.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn many countries, the healthcare sector is dealing with important challenges such as increased demand for healthcare services, capacity problems in hospitals and rising healthcare costs. Therefore, one of the aims of the Dutch government is to move care from in-hospital to out-of-hospital care settings. An example of an innovation where care is moved from a more specialised setting to a less specialised setting is the performance of an antenatal cardiotocography (aCTG) in primary midwife-led care. The aim of this study was to assess the budget impact of implementing aCTG for healthy pregnant women in midwife-led care compared with usual obstetrician-led care in the Netherlands.
methodsA budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the actual costs and reimbursement of aCTG performed in midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care (ie, base-case analysis) from the Dutch healthcare perspective. Epidemiological and healthcare utilisation data describing both care pathways were obtained from a prospective cohort, survey and national databases. Different implementation rates of aCTG in midwife-led care were explored. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the budget impact estimates.
resultsShifting aCTG from obstetrician-led care to midwife-led-care would increase actual costs with €311 763 (97.5% CI €188 574 to €426 072) and €1 247 052 (97.5% CI €754 296 to €1 704 290) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively, while it would decrease reimbursement with -€7 538 335 (97.5% CI -€10 302 306 to -€4 559 661) and -€30 153 342 (97.5% CI -€41 209 225 to -€18 238 645) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis.
conclusionsFrom the Dutch healthcare perspective, we estimated that implementing aCTG in midwife-led care may increase the associated actual costs. At the same time, it might lower the healthcare reimbursement.
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.