Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707888›Full record

Observational studyHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Cervical ripening at home or in hospital during induction of labour: the CHOICE prospective cohort study, process evaluation and economic analysis.

Mairead Black, Cassandra Yuill, Mairi Harkness, Sayem Ahmed, Linda Williams, Kathleen A Boyd, Maggie Reid, Amar Bhide, Neelam Heera, Jane Huddleston and 9 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Outpatient cervical ripening with Foley balloon or mifepristone: Insights into the time taken to reach the active phase of labor.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Trial
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

19 authors.

Mairead BlackAberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6841-8601
Cassandra YuillCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3918-5917
Mairi HarknessNursing, Maternity and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1007-7648
Sayem AhmedHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9499-1500
Linda WilliamsEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6317-1718
Kathleen A BoydHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9764-0113
Maggie ReidClevermed Ltd, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5458-2902
Amar BhideFetal Medicine Unit, St George's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2393-7501
Neelam HeeraCysters, Wolverhampton, UK.
Jane HuddlestonPublic representative, Lancaster, UK.
Neena ModiImperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2093-0681
John NorrieEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9823-9252
Dharmintra PasupathyReproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6722-1006
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5712-9989
Gordon C S SmithObstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2124-0997
Rosemary TownsendUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3438-7069
Helen CheyneNursing, Maternity and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5738-8390
Christine McCourtCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4765-5795
Sarah StockUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4308-856X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Around one in three pregnant women undergoes induction of labour in the United Kingdom, usually preceded by in-hospital cervical ripening to soften and open the cervix. Objectives: This study set out to determine whether cervical ripening at home is within an acceptable safety margin of cervical ripening in hospital, is effective, acceptable and cost-effective from both National Health Service and service user perspectives. Design: The CHOICE study comprised a prospective multicentre observational cohort study using routinely collected data (CHOICE cohort), a process evaluation comprising a survey and nested case studies (qCHOICE) and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The CHOICE cohort set out to compare outcomes of cervical ripening using dinoprostone (a prostaglandin) at home with in-hospital cervical ripening from 39 weeks of gestation. Electronic maternity record data were collected from 26 maternity units. Following pilot analysis, the primary comparison was changed to ensure feasibility and to reflect current practice, comparing home cervical ripening using a balloon catheter with in-hospital cervical ripening using any prostaglandin from 37 weeks of gestation. Analysis involved multiple logistic regression for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics for all other outcomes. The qCHOICE study reported descriptive statistics of quantitative survey data and thematic analysis of focus group and interview data. The economic analysis involved a decision-analytic model from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, populated with CHOICE cohort and published data. Secondary analysis explored the patient perspective utilising cost estimates from qCHOICE data. Setting: Twenty-six United Kingdom maternity units. Participants: Women with singleton pregnancies at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation having induction with details of cervical ripening method and location recorded. Main outcome measures: Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more. qCHOICE: Maternal and staff experience of cervical ripening. Economic analysis: Incremental cost per neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth avoided. Data sources: Electronic maternity records from 26 maternity units; survey and interviews with service users/maternity staff; focus groups with maternity staff; published literature on economic aspects. Results: CHOICE cohort: A total of 515 women underwent balloon cervical ripening at home and 4332 underwent in-hospital cervical ripening using prostaglandin in hospitals that did not offer home cervical ripening. Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more following home cervical ripening with balloon was not increased compared with in-hospital cervical ripening with prostaglandin. However, there was substantial uncertainty with the adjusted analysis consistent with a 74% decrease in the risk through to an 81% increase. qCHOICE: Important aspects of service users' experience of home cervical ripening were quality of information provided, support and perception of genuine choice. Economic analysis: Home cervical ripening with balloon led to cost savings of £993 (-£1198, -£783) per woman and can be considered the dominant strategy. Limitations: Circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic limited the number of participating maternity units and the duration for which units participated. Low numbers of women having at-home cervical ripening limited the power to detect differences in safety, effectiveness, cost and acceptability between study groups. Conclusions: Home cervical ripening using balloon catheter may be as safe for babies as using prostaglandins in hospital in low and moderate-risk groups, but there is substantial uncertainty. Home cervical ripening with balloon is likely to be cost saving. Impacts on workload, service user and staff experiences were complex. Future work: Future research should focus on optimising experience and logistics of home cervical ripening within busy maternity services. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32652461. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127569) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Cervical RipeningCost-Benefit AnalysisDinoprostoneLabor, InducedOxytocicsAdultFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesState MedicineUnited KingdomDinoprostoneOxytocicsACCEPTABILITYCERVICAL RIPENINGCOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISDECISION MAKINGDINOPROSTONEELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDSEXPERIENCEFEMALEHEALTH EXPENDITURESHOME CERVICAL RIPENINGINDUCEDINFANTINFORMED CHOICELABORMULTICENTER STUDIESNEWBORNOBSERVATIONAL STUDIESPREGNANCYPROSPECTIVE STUDIESSURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES

Identifiers

PMID39707888
PMCPMC11683663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.