ArticleAnaesthesia2025
Patient perception of consent processes for epidural analgesia in induction of labour: a qualitative study.
Article in Anaesthesia, 2025. 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.
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
introductionWomen undergoing induction of labour often utilise epidural analgesia. Obtaining consent for labour epidural presents a unique challenge for the obstetric anaesthetist, who must comply with the legal standards of consent. This study explores how women perceive the consent process for epidural analgesia during induction of labour.
methodsThis was a qualitative, single-centre, interview-based study. Fourteen women who received an epidural for labour analgesia were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsFour themes described women's experience of the consent process. Understanding alternatives, risks and benefits; for example, time constraints hindering the effective communication of information around epidural analgesia, including alternative analgesic options. Timing of information; for example, the value of information was diminished by pain, fatigue and the imminence of the procedure. Timing of consent; for example, physiological and psychological demands of labour negatively impacted patients' ability to engage with the consent process. Anaesthetists' assessment of patient understanding; for example, confirmation of patient understanding by anaesthetists was lacking. DISCUSSION: Women's experiences of the consent process for induction of labour suggest that in the context of the pain and exhaustion of labour, inadequate and untimely information provision and dialogue between women and their anaesthetists can undermine the implementation of lawful consent.
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.