Trial reportBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
How Should We Communicate Information Regarding Birth Choices to Women?: An Online Randomised Survey.
Trial report in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The freebirth debate: Respecting autonomy while reflecting on our own practices.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- What Should Be Discussed When Considering a Vaginal Birth? A Delphi Consensus Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- From numerical to empathy: the dual impact of psychological contracts in doctor-patient communication.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify which risk communication graphics are easiest to understand when communicating risks surrounding birth, and investigate the effect of numeracy and health literacy on understanding.
designOnline survey with randomised content.
settingUK. POPULATION: Women and their partners, healthcare professionals and stakeholders in the UK.
methodsSeven candidate graphics ('10-person', '100-person', '10-circle', '100-circle' icon arrays, 'bar charts', 'pie charts' and 'words') were co-produced with a patient and public involvement group. These were used to develop seven online surveys. Participants were recruited using social media and adverts in participating hospitals. Each participant was randomised to see one of seven surveys, the survey questions remained the same, the graphics varied. Data were collected on risk perception, perceived ease of understanding and preference, alongside demographic factors, numeracy skills and health literacy.
main outcome measuresObjective comprehension and subjective preference for graphics.
resultsThere were 858 participants, 771 women/partners/parents and 87 healthcare professionals and stakeholders. 70% of participants answered all four numeracy questions correctly, and respondents reported high health literacy (76.5% can understand health material, 72.8% were comfortable completing medical forms). All graphics were understood; however, the '100-person' icon array elicited the best score when comparing two risks (mean score 97.5% compared to next best performing graphic 95.8%), 41% believed it was the easiest to understand and 36% selected it as the preferred graphic.
conclusionsAll graphics are well understood. The '100-person' icon array scored best in terms of risk comparison and participant preference. Using this graphic may support high-quality communication of risk in maternity care.
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.