ArticleBMJ open2026
What should be discussed when considering an induction of labour? A UK-wide, multi-centre Delphi study to develop a core information set for induction of labour.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Women's perspectives of decision-making for labour and birth: a qualitative antenatal-postnatal paired interview study.BMJ open · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a core information set for induction of labour. Rates of induction of labour for childbirth are rising in many high-income countries. In England, a third of women have their labours induced. National guidelines recommend women receive information to make informed decisions about induction.
designTwo-stage consensus study using modified Delphi.
settingUK.
participantsPregnant people, parents and professionals. OUTCOMES: Stage 1: A long list of information points was identified through a systematic review of reviews, reviewing patient leaflets, qualitative interviews and a stakeholder survey, with ongoing patient, public and professional involvement. Stage 2: Think-aloud interviews were undertaken to refine the Delphi survey before a two-round modified Delphi process where participants voted on the importance of the information items. Pre-specified criteria were used to select items taken forward to a consensus meeting.
results199 information points were identified through systematic review (110), patient information leaflets (162), qualitative interviews (58) and a survey (93). 46 unique information items entered the first Delphi round after four think-aloud interviews, 2 items were added following round 2. 368 people (310 parents/58 professionals) participated in round 1 and 177 people (154 parents/23 professionals) in round 2. 44 items met inclusion criteria; one item excluded, and three items were carried forward for consensus meeting discussion where 12 overarching information points were agreed on.
conclusionsThis study has established a consensus-based core information set for induction of labour from a sample of the birthing population and staff providing their care. The resultant set has been populated with evidence in line with national guidelines. It can be used by women and clinicians as a standardised starting point from which to personalise discussions about birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: COMET Initiative registration 2600: Developing a core information set for induction of labour.
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.