↓ Skip to main content

Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Draycott, H. van der Nelson, C. Montouchet, L. Ruff, F. Andersson

Abstract

In view of the increasing pressure on the UK's maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term. The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model's sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses. Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9 %) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121 % and 52 % in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2 % reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4 % increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI. Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,472,296
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,708
of 7,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,447
of 400,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#49
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.