Michael Beckmann1, Melissa Acreman2, Emily Schmidt2, Katharina M D Merollini3, Yvette Miller4. 1. Mater Health, Queensland, Australia; University of Queensland, School of Medicine, Queensland, Australia; Mater Research, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: Michael.Beckmann@mater.org.au. 2. Mater Health, Queensland, Australia. 3. University of the Sunshine Coast, School of Health and Sport Sciences, Queensland, Australia. 4. Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Induction of labor (IOL) typically involves cervical priming in an inpatient setting. Outpatient cervical priming may be a safe and cost-effective alternative. However, little is known about women's preference and the impact of outpatient cervical priming on their healthcare experience. The objective was to compare women's healthcare experiences following IOL using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) and remaining an inpatient. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken across eight Australian maternity hospitals. Between September 2015 and October 2018, 695 women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies were randomized. Of these, 215 and 233 women in the balloon-outpatient and PG-inpatient groups, respectively, received the allocated intervention. The PG group received Dinoprostone gel or controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home. Experiential and quality-of-life outcomes were measured via written questionnaire after birth. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure. Women's healthcare experience, health-state (EQ-5D-3 L) and pain scores are reported here. RESULTS: Questionnaire data were available for 366 (81.7 %) women enrolled who received their treatment allocation. More women in the balloon-outpatient group reported they would choose IOL next pregnancy (49.2 % vs 38.4 %; p = 0.037) and desire the same method (72.4 % vs 61.1 %; p = 0.022). The balloon-outpatient group experienced higher pain scores at the start of IOL (median (IQR) 3(2-5) vs 2(1-4); p = 0.002) but lower scores at time of rupture of membranes (3(1-5) vs 4(2-6); p = 0.007). The EQ-5D-3 L health-utility index did not differ significantly between the groups (0.77 vs 0.78; p = 0.899). CONCLUSIONS: Women report similar healthcare experiences following balloon-outpatient compared to PG-impatient IOL, but are more likely to desire the same method next pregnancy if IOL is required. If both options are available, then differences in experience should be shared with women, alongside differences in clinical outcomes as part of their decision-making process.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Induction of labor (IOL) typically involves cervical priming in an inpatient setting. Outpatient cervical priming may be a safe and cost-effective alternative. However, little is known about women's preference and the impact of outpatient cervical priming on their healthcare experience. The objective was to compare women's healthcare experiences following IOL using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) and remaining an inpatient. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken across eight Australian maternity hospitals. Between September 2015 and October 2018, 695 women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies were randomized. Of these, 215 and 233 women in the balloon-outpatient and PG-inpatient groups, respectively, received the allocated intervention. The PG group received Dinoprostone gel or controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home. Experiential and quality-of-life outcomes were measured via written questionnaire after birth. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure. Women's healthcare experience, health-state (EQ-5D-3 L) and pain scores are reported here. RESULTS: Questionnaire data were available for 366 (81.7 %) women enrolled who received their treatment allocation. More women in the balloon-outpatient group reported they would choose IOL next pregnancy (49.2 % vs 38.4 %; p = 0.037) and desire the same method (72.4 % vs 61.1 %; p = 0.022). The balloon-outpatient group experienced higher pain scores at the start of IOL (median (IQR) 3(2-5) vs 2(1-4); p = 0.002) but lower scores at time of rupture of membranes (3(1-5) vs 4(2-6); p = 0.007). The EQ-5D-3 L health-utility index did not differ significantly between the groups (0.77 vs 0.78; p = 0.899). CONCLUSIONS:Women report similar healthcare experiences following balloon-outpatient compared to PG-impatient IOL, but are more likely to desire the same method next pregnancy if IOL is required. If both options are available, then differences in experience should be shared with women, alongside differences in clinical outcomes as part of their decision-making process.