Black Mairead, Yuill Cassandra, Harkness Mairi, Ahmed Sayem, Williams Linda, Boyd Kathleen A, Reid Maggie, Bhide Amar, Heera Neelam, Huddleston Jane, Modi Neena, Norrie John, Pasupathy Dharmintra, Sanders Julia, Smith Gordon C S, Townsend Rosemary, Cheyne Helen, McCourt Christine, Stock Sarah
Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, UK.
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences University of London, London, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Dec;28(81):1-142. doi: 10.3310/LPYT7894.
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.
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.
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.
Twenty-six United Kingdom maternity units.
Women with singleton pregnancies at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation having induction with details of cervical ripening method and location recorded.
Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more.
Maternal and staff experience of cervical ripening.
Incremental cost per neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth avoided.
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.
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.
Important aspects of service users' experience of home cervical ripening were quality of information provided, support and perception of genuine choice.
Home cervical ripening with balloon led to cost savings of £993 (-£1198, -£783) per woman and can be considered the dominant strategy.
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.
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 research should focus on optimising experience and logistics of home cervical ripening within busy maternity services.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32652461.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127569) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 81. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
在英国,约三分之一的孕妇会接受引产,通常在住院期间先进行宫颈成熟,以使宫颈软化并扩张。
本研究旨在确定在家中进行宫颈成熟是否在医院宫颈成熟可接受的安全范围内,从英国国家医疗服务体系(National Health Service,简称NHS)和服务使用者的角度来看,是否有效、可接受且具有成本效益。
“选择(CHOICE)研究”包括一项前瞻性多中心观察性队列研究,使用常规收集的数据(CHOICE队列)、一项包括调查和嵌套案例研究的过程评估(qCHOICE)以及一项成本效益分析。CHOICE队列旨在比较从妊娠39周起在家使用地诺前列酮(一种前列腺素)进行宫颈成熟与在医院进行宫颈成熟的结果。从26个产科单位收集电子产妇记录数据。经过初步分析后,主要比较内容发生了变化,以确保可行性并反映当前的做法,即比较从妊娠37周起使用球囊导管在家进行宫颈成熟与在医院使用任何前列腺素进行宫颈成熟的情况。分析涉及对主要结局进行多重逻辑回归以及对所有其他结局进行描述性统计。qCHOICE研究报告了定量调查数据的描述性统计以及焦点小组和访谈数据的主题分析。经济分析涉及从NHS和个人社会服务的角度建立一个决策分析模型,该模型使用CHOICE队列和已发表的数据。二次分析利用qCHOICE数据的成本估算来探索患者的观点。
英国的26个产科单位。
妊娠37周及以上的单胎妊娠妇女,她们接受引产,并记录了宫颈成熟方法和地点的详细信息。
出生后48小时内新生儿入住新生儿病房48小时及以上。
qCHOICE:产妇和工作人员对宫颈成熟的体验。
避免出生后48小时内新生儿入住新生儿病房的每例增量成本。
26个产科单位的电子产妇记录;对服务使用者/产科工作人员的调查和访谈;与产科工作人员的焦点小组讨论;关于经济方面的已发表文献。
CHOICE队列:共有515名妇女在家中使用球囊进行宫颈成熟,4332名妇女在不提供在家宫颈成熟服务的医院中使用前列腺素进行住院宫颈成熟。与在医院使用前列腺素进行宫颈成熟相比,在家中使用球囊进行宫颈成熟后出生48小时内新生儿入住新生儿病房48小时及以上的情况并未增加。然而,校正分析存在很大的不确定性,风险降低74%至增加81%均有可能。
qCHOICE:服务使用者在家中进行宫颈成熟体验的重要方面包括所提供信息的质量、支持以及对真正选择的感知。
使用球囊在家中进行宫颈成熟可为每位妇女节省993英镑(-1198英镑,-783英镑)的成本,可被视为主要策略。
与2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行相关的情况限制了参与产科单位的数量以及各单位参与的持续时间。在家中进行宫颈成熟的妇女数量较少,限制了检测研究组之间在安全性、有效性、成本和可接受性方面差异的能力。
在低风险和中等风险组中,使用球囊导管在家中进行宫颈成熟对婴儿可能与在医院使用前列腺素一样安全,但存在很大的不确定性。使用球囊在家中进行宫颈成熟可能会节省成本。对工作量、服务使用者和工作人员体验的影响较为复杂。
未来的研究应侧重于在繁忙的产科服务中优化在家中进行宫颈成熟的体验和后勤保障。
当前受控试验ISRCTN32652461。
本研究由英国国家卫生与保健研究所(National Institute for Health and Care Research,简称NIHR)卫生技术评估项目资助(NIHR资助编号:NIHR127569),全文发表于第28卷,第81期。有关进一步的资助信息,请参见NIHR资助与奖项网站。