ArticlePloS one2025
Maternity care providers' perspectives on late-term gestation management (LATE-study): A cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 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
objectiveTo examine the experiences, perspectives, and impact on daily work of maternity care providers regarding the updated Dutch national guideline on the management of late-term pregnancies. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a cross-sectional survey for maternity care providers in the Netherlands in 2024.
methodsAn online questionnaire was developed, improved on the basis of four semi-structured interviews, piloted, and distributed to primary care and hospital-based midwives, residents, and obstetricians. A 5-point Likert Scale was used for most questions. Descriptive analyses and data visualisation were performed. Linear regressions were performed to assess the association between characteristics and agreement with and adherence to the recommendations. The main outcome measures were awareness of the guideline, agreement with and adherence to the recommendations, opinions and perspectives on the impact of the guideline, and experiences of participants regarding the guideline.
resultsA total of 643 care providers were included, of whom 53% were primary care midwives, 29% obstetricians/residents and 19% hospital-based midwives. There was 72% agreement and 87% adherence to "offer induction of labour (IOL) at 41 weeks alongside expectant management". Although 92% agreed with "discuss the advantages and disadvantages", only 67% agreed with "specify perinatal outcomes" and 63% agreed with "specify outcomes for nulliparous versus multiparous women". Adherence to these and to recommendations regarding monitoring were lower (43-59%). There was uncertainty among 45% about the benefits of the guideline, with only 17% believing in maternal and 20% believing in neonatal benefits.
conclusionsCare providers widely agreed with and adhered to the recommendation to offer IOL at 41 weeks, but adherence to specific elements of shared decision-making was lower, and care providers expressed limited confidence on the benefits of the policy for mother and child.
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.