Howard Kirsten, Gerard Karen, Adelson Pamela, Bryce Robert, Wilkinson Chris, Turnbull Deborah
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 30;14:330. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-330.
In many countries a high proportion of births begin as induced labours. Induction can be lengthy if cervical priming is required prior to induction. This usually occurs as an inpatient, however, an alternative is to allow women to go home after satisfactory fetal monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of women for cervical priming for induction of labour in an outpatient or inpatient setting.
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted alongside a randomised trial of inpatient and outpatient cervical priming (the OPRA trial) in two maternity hospitals in South Australia. 362 participants were included, and women's preferences for cervical priming for induction of labour were assessed.
Women were willing to accept an extra 1.4 trips to hospital (2.4 trips total) and a total travel time of 73.3 minutes to be able to return to their own home while waiting for the priming to work. For enhanced inpatient services, women were willing to accept a total travel time of 54.7 minutes to have a private room with private bathroom while waiting for the priming to work. The overall benefit score for outpatient priming was 3.63, 3.59 for enhanced inpatient care and 2.89 for basic inpatient care, suggesting slightly greater preferences for outpatient priming. Preferences for outpatient priming increased when women could return to their own home (compared to other offsite accommodation), and decreased with more trips to hospital and longer travel time.
Our results suggest that outpatient priming was slightly more preferred than either enhanced inpatient priming or basic care; these results should be confirmed in different clinical settings. There may be merit in providing women information about both options in the future, as preferences varied according to the characteristics of the services on offer and the sociodemographic background of the woman.
在许多国家,很大一部分分娩始于引产。如果引产之前需要进行宫颈准备,引产过程可能会很长。这通常在住院期间进行,不过,另一种选择是在胎儿监测结果令人满意后让女性回家。本研究的目的是评估女性对于在门诊或住院环境中进行引产宫颈准备的偏好。
在南澳大利亚的两家妇产医院,在一项关于住院和门诊宫颈准备的随机试验(OPRA试验)的同时进行了一项离散选择实验(DCE)。纳入了362名参与者,并评估了女性对于引产宫颈准备的偏好。
女性愿意额外前往医院1.4次(总共2.4次),总出行时间为73.3分钟,以便在等待宫颈准备起效期间能够回到自己家中。对于强化的住院服务,女性愿意接受总出行时间为54.7分钟,以便在等待宫颈准备起效期间拥有带独立卫生间的私人房间。门诊宫颈准备的总体效益得分是3.63,强化住院护理为3.59,基本住院护理为2.89,这表明对门诊宫颈准备的偏好略高。当女性能够回到自己家中(与其他非医院住宿相比)时,对门诊宫颈准备的偏好增加,而随着前往医院次数增多和出行时间延长,偏好则降低。
我们的结果表明,门诊宫颈准备比强化住院宫颈准备或基本护理更受青睐;这些结果应在不同临床环境中得到证实。未来向女性提供关于这两种选择的信息可能是有价值的,因为偏好会根据所提供服务的特点以及女性的社会人口统计学背景而有所不同。