OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons. METHODS: Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI -$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI -$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman. CONCLUSIONS:Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons. METHODS: Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI -$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI -$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman. CONCLUSIONS: Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming.