Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/30435
Title: Cervical ripening at home or in hospital during induction of labour: the CHOICE prospective cohort study, process evaluation and economic analysis
Authors: Black, M
Yuill, C
Harkness, M
Ahmed, S
Williams, L
Boyd, KA
Reid, M
Bhide, A
Heera, N
Huddleston, J
Modi, N
Norrie, J
Pasupathy, D
Sanders, J
Smith, GCS
Townsend, R
Cheyne, H
McCourt, C
Stock, S
Keywords: cost-effectiveness;prostaglandin-E2 gel;Foley catheter;outpatient;meta analysis;inpatient;scale
Issue Date: Dec-2024
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
Citation: Black, M. et al. (2024) 'Cervical ripening at home or in hospital during induction of labour: the CHOICE prospective cohort study, process evaluation and economic analysis', Health Technology Assessment, 28 (81), pp. 1 - 142. doi: 10.3310/lpyt7894.
Abstract: Background: Around one in three pregnant women undergoes induction of labour in the United Kingdom, usually preceded by in-hospital cervical ripening to soften and open the cervix. Objectives: This study set out to determine whether cervical ripening at home is within an acceptable safety margin of cervical ripening in hospital, is effective, acceptable and cost-effective from both National Health Service and service user perspectives. Design: The CHOICE study comprised a prospective multicentre observational cohort study using routinely collected data (CHOICE cohort), a process evaluation comprising a survey and nested case studies (qCHOICE) and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The CHOICE cohort set out to compare outcomes of cervical ripening using dinoprostone (a prostaglandin) at home with in-hospital cervical ripening from 39 weeks of gestation. Electronic maternity record data were collected from 26 maternity units. Following pilot analysis, the primary comparison was changed to ensure feasibility and to reflect current practice, comparing home cervical ripening using a balloon catheter with in-hospital cervical ripening using any prostaglandin from 37 weeks of gestation. Analysis involved multiple logistic regression for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics for all other outcomes. The qCHOICE study reported descriptive statistics of quantitative survey data and thematic analysis of focus group and interview data. The economic analysis involved a decision-analytic model from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, populated with CHOICE cohort and published data. Secondary analysis explored the patient perspective utilising cost estimates from qCHOICE data. Setting: Twenty-six United Kingdom maternity units. Participants: Women with singleton pregnancies at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation having induction with details of cervical ripening method and location recorded. Main outcome measures: CHOICE cohort Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more. qCHOICE: Maternal and staff experience of cervical ripening. Economic analysis: Incremental cost per neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth avoided. Data sources: Electronic maternity records from 26 maternity units; survey and interviews with service users/maternity staff; focus groups with maternity staff; published literature on economic aspects. Results: CHOICE cohort: A total of 515 women underwent balloon cervical ripening at home and 4332 underwent in-hospital cervical ripening using prostaglandin in hospitals that did not offer home cervical ripening. Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more following home cervical ripening with balloon was not increased compared with in-hospital cervical ripening with prostaglandin. However, there was substantial uncertainty with the adjusted analysis consistent with a 74% decrease in the risk through to an 81% increase. qCHOICE: Important aspects of service users’ experience of home cervical ripening were quality of information provided, support and perception of genuine choice. Economic analysis: Home cervical ripening with balloon led to cost savings of £993 (−£1198, −£783) per woman and can be considered the dominant strategy. Limitations: Circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic limited the number of participating maternity units and the duration for which units participated. Low numbers of women having at-home cervical ripening limited the power to detect differences in safety, effectiveness, cost and acceptability between study groups. Conclusions: Home cervical ripening using balloon catheter may be as safe for babies as using prostaglandins in hospital in low and moderate-risk groups, but there is substantial uncertainty. Home cervical ripening with balloon is likely to be cost saving. Impacts on workload, service user and staff experiences were complex. Future work: Future research should focus on optimising experience and logistics of home cervical ripening within busy maternity services. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32652461.
Description: Plain Language Summary: Labour is often started artificially. This is called induction of labour. Induction of labour is usually planned when it is safer to end the pregnancy. The first stage of induction of labour – ‘cervical ripening’ – means using medication or a balloon to open the neck of the womb. Years ago, cervical ripening only happened in hospitals, but now many women are offered ‘home cervical ripening’. This means that induction of labour starts in hospital then women go home while the treatment starts working. This could mean that women spend less time in hospital. They may prefer to be at home. However, home cervical ripening may be less safe because problems may not be noticed as quickly. We looked at whether home cervical ripening is safe, acceptable to women and their partners, and good value for money. We used information about women and babies that is usually stored in electronic maternity notes. We studied women who had induction of labour in 26 United Kingdom maternity hospitals. Women were told about the study and could choose not to be included. Our main question was ‘does home cervical ripening increase the chance that a baby needs care in a neonatal unit, compared with cervical ripening in hospital?’ We surveyed women about their experience of induction of labour and any financial costs to them. We interviewed women, partners, doctors and midwives to hear what they thought about home cervical ripening. Fewer women than expected had home cervical ripening. We could not be certain that home cervical ripening with a balloon is as safe for babies as cervical ripening in hospital using medication. Home cervical ripening cost almost £1000 less per woman than in-hospital cervical ripening. Home cervical ripening was acceptable to women when they felt well looked after, when maternity staff communicated well with them, and when they felt they had a choice about going home.
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/30435
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/lpyt7894
Other Identifiers: ORCiD: Mairead Black https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6841-8601
ORCiD: Cassandra Yuill https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-5917
ORCiD: Mairi Harkness https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1007-7648
ORCiD: Sayem Ahmed https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1500
ORCiD: Linda Williams https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6317-1718
ORCiD: Kathleen A Boyd https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-0113
ORCiD: Maggie Reid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5458-2902
ORCiD: Amar Bhide https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2393-7501
ORCiD: Neena Modi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2093-0681
ORCiD: John Norrie https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-9252
ORCiD: Dharmintra Pasupathy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6722-1006
ORCiD: Julia Sanders https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-9989
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2024 Black et al. Published by the NIHR Journals Library (www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk). This work was produced by Black et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.2.82 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons