ArticleBMC health services research2025
How are hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales caring for women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a national service evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 90% of pregnant women but many struggle to access guideline-recommended care. Following a King’s Policy Institute policy laboratory, arranged to explore barriers to care, it was recommended that a scoping review of current national practice was carried out. This study aims to describe NVP services in England, Scotland and Wales and compare management to national guidance.
methodsAn online survey was distributed to all 139 maternity units in England, Scotland and Wales using freedom of information services. Data were downloaded onto an Excel spreadsheet and statistical analysis performed using GraphPad Prism 10.
resultsResponses were received from 129/139 hospitals giving a response rate of 92.8%. Routine screening for NVP/HG at a woman’s booking visit is offered in 37/129 (28.7%) of the hospitals. Treatment in the community was offered in 19/129 (14.8%) and ambulatory management available in 108/129 (83.7%) of hospitals that responded. As per RCOG guidance only 60/129 (47%) of hospitals correctly prescribe a combination of recommended first, second and third-line antiemetics and whether the maternity unit is secondary or tertiary, or whether patients are primarily managed in an obstetric or gynaecology setting, does not influence provision of guideline-recommended care, (secondary 39/85 (45.8%) vs. tertiary 21/44 (47.7%) p = 0.84 and obstetric 12/34 (35.3%) vs. gynaecology setting 48/95 (50.5%) p = 0.13, respectively). A proton pump inhibitor was prescribed in 64/129 (49.6%) of units and thiamine for patients with persistent vomiting in 90/129 (69.8%). Guideline-recommend intravenous fluid management (0.9% normal saline) is used in 93/129 (72.1%) of units. In those where it is not, 5/36 (13.9%) use dextrose solution (recognised to precipitate Wernicke’s encephalopathy). Routine mental health screening occurs in 54/129 (41.9%) of units. Pre-pregnancy counselling is offered to women with a history of severe NVP/HG planning a future pregnancy in 22/129 (17.1%) of units.
conclusionsSignificant variation in HG care exists across England, Scotland and Wales. Despite guidance published by the RCOG the treatment women currently receive is not routinely evidence-based and in some cases has potential to cause harm.
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.