SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Economic evaluation;
  • induction of labour;
  • isosorbide mononitrate;
  • obstetrics

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Objectives  To assess the cost-effectiveness of outpatient (at home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) prior to induction of labour.

Design  Economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised placebo controlled trial (the IMOP trial).

Setting  Large UK maternity hospital.

Population  A total of 350 nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation ≥37 weeks gestation, requiring cervical ripening prior to induction of labour.

Interventions  Isosorbide mononitrate (n = 177) or placebo (n = 173) self-administered vaginally at home at 48, 32 and 16 hours prior to the scheduled time of admission for induction.

Results  Mean health service costs between the period of randomisation and discharge for mother and infant were £1254.86 in the IMN group and £1242.88 in the placebo group, generating a mean cost difference of £11.98 (bootstrap mean cost difference £12.86; 95%CI: −£106.79, £129.39) that was not statistically significant (P = 0.842). The incremental cost per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery was £7.53. At the notional willingness to pay threshold of £100 per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery, the probability that IMN is cost-effective was estimated at 0.67. This translated into a mean net monetary benefit of £98.13 for each woman given IMN.

Conclusions  Although the probability that IMN is cost-effective approaches 0.7 at seemingly low willingness to pay thresholds for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery, our results should be viewed in the light of the clinical findings from the IMOP trial.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Post-term pregnancy is associated with increased rates of fetal complications, including meconium and meconium aspiration syndrome, oligohydramnios, macrosomia, fetal birth injury, non-reassuring fetal heart rate or fetal distress in labour and caesarean delivery.1 Labour induction, carried out to reduce the risk of complications in post-term pregnancies, is successful depending on the degree of cervical ripening.2 Isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) is a nitric oxide (NO) donor that can be used for cervical ripening without causing uterine contractions and the need for fetal monitoring, and therefore be safely administered at home.2,3 Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on the use of prostaglandins (PG), another cervical ripening agent, but the agent has since been declared unsafe for the outpatient (at home) context by many authorities because of adverse fetal and maternal effects.4,5 There is only one randomised controlled study, conducted in Sweden and published in early 2007, on the use of IMN for cervical ripening on an outpatient basis.6 That study found that outpatient administered IMN is clinically effective, safe and well tolerated, although it provided no evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the agent. In this paper, we present the results of an economic evaluation of outpatient (at home) cervical ripening using IMN based on the Isosorbide MOnonitrate against Placebo study (IMOP) trial. This economic evaluation has been written in conjunction with the paper reporting clinical outcomes from the IMOP trial.7

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Clinical study

The methods for the economic evaluation build on those of the clinical study also reported in this issue of the journal.7 In brief, eligible nulliparous women with a singleton fetus were enrolled into a RCT at the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, between March 2005 and December 2006. The objectives were to test the hypothesis that outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening with IMN (40 mg) reduces the elapsed time from hospital admission to delivery as compared with placebo. The primary outcome of the trial was elapsed time interval from hospital admission to delivery. A finding of a reduction in duration from hospital admission to delivery in excess of 4 hours was considered a priori to be clinically important. Ethical approval was obtained.

Measurement of resource use

Data were collected on all significant health service resource inputs used in the treatment of each woman and infant during the period between randomisation and hospital discharge. The trial data collection forms recorded the duration and intensity of maternal and neonatal care, based on standard criteria for level of care, and profiled maternal and neonatal complications. Observational work was undertaken to estimate the disaggregated resource inputs associated with complications experienced by women and infants, as well as the disaggregated resource inputs associated with alternative modes of delivery. Specifically, this involved face-to-face interviews with clinicians and midwives at the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital in order to establish staff times associated with complications and modes of delivery, as well as any equipment, drugs and disposables used. This was externally validated against clinical protocols for various aspects of maternity and neonatal care within the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital and within other hospital settings across the UK. Electronic data collection systems at the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital were accessed to ascertain occupancy rates for each maternity and neonatal ward for the recruitment period of the RCT.

Valuation of resource use

Unit costs for each resource item were obtained from a variety of sources. All unit costs employed followed recent guidelines on costing healthcare services as part of economic evaluation.8 An average (per diem) cost per day for different forms of maternity care was calculated by sending a detailed questionnaire to the hospital finance department, requesting cost data for the main resource categories of medical and nursing staff, equipment, consumables and revenue and capital overheads, and then apportioning these to different wards (prenatal assessment ward, labour ward and postnatal ward) using a ‘top–down’ methodology.9 Each per dime cost was then adjusted to reflect occupancy rates with each ward over the recruitment period of the trial. These data were validated by feeding back the costs to the hospital finance department for confirmation of accuracy and comparison with other national data. An average cost per day for each level of neonatal care, as well as intensive care for the mother, and an average cost of ambulance transfer, was derived from national Department of Health reference costs.10 Department of Health reference costs are pre-calculated on a full absorption costing basis so that costs for each level of care include staff salary, on-costs, equipment, consumables and revenue and capital overheads, bringing this is line with the costing methods we applied in our top–down methodology. The costs of drugs prescribed by the hospital were obtained from hospital pharmacy bulk pricing data. Unit costs were combined with resource volumes to obtain a net cost per mother and infant during the trial period. All costs are expressed in UK pounds sterling and valued at 2007 prices.

Measurement and representation of cost effectiveness

We performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis in which we calculated the incremental costs (ΔC) and incremental effectiveness (ΔE) of IMN compared with placebo and expressed these as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; ΔC/ΔE). The cost-effectiveness of IMN was expressed in terms of the incremental cost per in patient hour prevented in the interval from hospital admission to delivery.

Data analysis

The economic evaluation was conducted from a health service perspective on the basis of intention to treat. Discounting of costs and health effects was unnecessary because of the restricted time horizon for the economic evaluation. All results are reported as mean values with standard deviations and as mean differences in costs and effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where applicable. We tested for differences in resource use and costs between the comparator groups using the independent-samples t-test procedure. The differences in resource use, costs and effects were considered significant if two-tailed P values were 0.05 or less. As the data for costs were skewed, we used non-parametric bootstrap estimation to derive 95% CIs for mean cost differences between the comparator groups.11 The bootstrap method does not rely on parametric assumptions concerning the underlying distribution of the data, hence its usefulness for generating CIs for skewed data.11 Using a large number of simulations, and based on sampling with replacement from the original data, the bootstrap method estimates the distribution of a sampling statistic.11 Each of these CIs was calculated using 1000 bias-corrected bootstrap replications. Non-parametric bootstrap simulation of the cost-effect pairs was also performed to generate 1000 replications of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which were represented graphically on a four quadrant cost-effectiveness plane.12 Mean net benefits, defined as Rc.ΔE − ΔC,13 were estimated for alternative values of Rc, the willingness to pay threshold for the primary outcome, namely each hour of care between hospital admission and delivery that is prevented.

We undertook sensitivity analyses to illustrate the impact of the principal aspects of uncertainty on the estimates of cost-effectiveness. The values of the following variables were varied as part of the sensitivity analyses: (i) maternal hospital occupancy rates (10% increase and decrease to reflect variations in longer-term measures of occupancy over a 3 year instead of 22-month period, obtained from the hospital’s finance database); (ii) the per diem costs of each level of hospital maternity care (set at the mean and the upper and lower inter-quartile limits of national Department of Health reference costs10 in order to reflect variations in the relative price structures of resource inputs across alternative maternity settings) and (iii) the per diem cost of each level of neonatal care (set at the upper and lower inter-quartile limits of national Department of Health reference costs).

All analyses were performed with a microcomputer running Excel version 2003.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

A total of 350 women were randomised in the trial; 177 to the active group and 173 to the placebo group. The groups were similar in terms of mean maternal age, mean gestational age at delivery, number of previous pregnancies, indication for labour induction and modified bishop score.7

Isosorbide mononitrate reduced the hospital admission to delivery interval as compared with placebo by an average of 1.6 hours (95% CI: −1.9, 5.1; P = 0.37) (Table 1). There were no significant differences in mode of delivery, length of labour, oxytocin requirements during labour and the use of epidural analgesia in labour between the trial groups. The proportion of women with an unripe cervix (defined as Bishop score of <7) after 24 hours of outpatient treatment was significantly lower in the IMN group as compared with the placebo group (64% versus 77%; P = 0.021). The proportion of women requiring further PG was also lower in the IMN group as compared with placebo group (68% versus 77%), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.065). There was no significant difference in neonatal outcomes with respect to the proportion of babies admitted to the neonatal unit.

Table 1.   Primary and secondary outcomes for mothers and babies randomised in IMOP trial
 IMN (n = 177)Placebo (n = 173)
Primary outcome
Elapsed time interval from hospitaladmission to delivery (hours) 25.06 26.66
Secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes (%)
Lower segment caesarean sections (LSCS) 65 (37) 56 (33)
Length of labour (hours)  8.38 8.14
Oxytocin augmentation rates127 (72)127 (73)
Epidural usage116 (65)120 (69)
Number with unfavourable cervix at 24 h after admission 83 (64) 98 (77)
Number with requirement for additional inpatient cervical ripening agent 87 (68) 98 (77)
Frequency of neonatal admissions to special care 18 (10) 16 (9)
Duration of neonatal admission (hours)  2.57  0.47
Still birth or neonatal death  0 1

Health service resource use

Women allocated to the IMN group spent, on average, a fewer number of hours on the prenatal assessment ward (where they are admitted when they arrive into hospital before labour has commenced) (P = 0.32) and in the labour ward (P = 0.63) than women allocated to the placebo group (Table 2), but none of these differences were statistically significant. Likewise, length of stay on the postnatal ward was not significantly different between the randomised groups (P = 0.40), nor were there any significant differences in the rates of maternal complications or neonatal hospitalisation (including ambulance transfers and length of stay in intensive care and high dependency units), apart from average length of stay in the special care baby unit (2.57 hours in the IMN group versus 0.47 hours in the placebo group; P = 0.05). The reasons for neonatal hospitalisation in special care (18 and 16 in the IMN and placebo groups respectively) included meconium aspiration, Group B streptococcal infection, respiratory distress, and neonatal pneumonia and sepsis, none of which are considered to have biological plausibility for attribution to IMN. The cost of neonatal complications experienced by infants was reflected in the cost calculations underpinning the Department of Health reference costs.10

Table 2.   Resource use and unit costs of resource items
Resource use variableResource use valueUnit cost or range**
IMN (n = 177)Placebo (n = 173)
  1. *Number of women undergoing assisted births (forceps or ventouse).

  2. **Source: aPrimary research, bDepartment of Health Reference Costs, cInclusive of £266.53 per caesarean section, £215.18 per rotational forceps delivery, £44.01 per midcavity forceps, £44.01 per ventouse delivery, dInclusive of £142.48 for severe postpartum haemorrhage (pph), £29.81 for moderate pph, £17.15 for mild pph, £125.61 for first and second degree tears, £7.83 for urinary tract infections, £7.83 for wound infections, eAssuming cost of £5.40 per mile (as per other similar studies).

Maternal hospitalisation
Length of stay in pre natal ward (min)998.29 (986.73)1100.79 (985.96) 0.33 per mina
Length of stay in labour ward (min)522.48 (232.35)541.59 (221.39) 0.75 per mina
Length of stay in postnatal ward (day)2.71 (1.37)2.58 (1.23)150.63 per daya
Length of stay in intensive care ward (day)0.03 (0.21)0.05 (0.28)711.85 per dayb
LSCS112.42 (121.64)103.97 (117.88)215.18a
Assisted deliveries* 47 (27%)  54 (31%) 44.01–215.18 per deliverya, c
Maternal complications
PPH, tears and wound and urine infections0.34 (0.47)0.29 (0.45) 7.83–142.48 per complicationa,d
Neonatal hospitalisation
Ambulance transfer (episodes)0.01 (0.76)0.01 (0.76)298.68 per transferb,e
Length of stay in intensive care unit (day)  (0.01) (0.75)   (0.01) (0.00)972.57 per dayb
Length of stay in high dependency unit (day)0.01 (0.11)0.00 (0.00)633.11 per dayb
Length of stay in special care unit (day)2.57 (13.7)0.47 (2.83)388.42 per dayb

Health service costs

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any cost category or total costs (Table 3). Mean health service costs between the period of randomisation and discharge for mother and infant were £1254.86 in the IMN group and £1242.88 in the placebo group, generating a mean cost difference of £11.98 (bootstrap mean cost difference £12.86; 95% CI: −£106.79, £129.39) that was not statistically significant (P = 0.842). Overall cost differences between the two groups can be largely explained by the additional care received by infants in the IMN group during the neonatal period [mean cost difference of £35.23 (bootstrap mean cost difference £33.70; 95%CI: −£2.17, £75.93; P = 0.088)] and the increased cost of postnatal care, which was higher by an average of £8.82 (bootstrap mean cost difference £8.82; 95%CI: £50.98, £64.74; P = 0.766). The largest cost saving was attributable to reduced stay in the pre natal assessment ward [mean cost difference of £33.82 (bootstrap mean cost difference −£35.38; 95%CI: −£96.89, £32.97; P = 0.332)]. The cost of labour and associated complications was a major cost component in the trial, although there was no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.977).

Table 3.   Mean costs and mean differences by cost category
Cost categoryIMN (n = 177)Placebo (n = 173)Mean differenceP value*Bootstrap mean difference (95% CI)**
Mean(SD)Mean(SD)
  1. SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

  2. *P values calculated using Student t-test.

  3. **Non-parametric bootstrap estimation using 1000 replications, bias corrected.

Medications including IMN12.6426.8910.2723.762.370.3832.53 (−2.93, 8.16)
Ambulance transfer1.6922.451.7322.71−.0400.987−0.23 (−5.18, 5.06)
Prenatal assessment ward329.44325.62363.26325.37−33.820.332−35.38 (−96.89, 32.97)
Labour and complications443.08186.39443.65188.21−0.570.977−0.87 (−40.71, 39.16)
Postnatal care430.07279.17421.25275.568.820.7668.94 (−50.98, 64.74)
Neonatal care37.96272.472.7313.1935.230.08833.70 (−2.17, 75.93)
Total NHS costs1254.86625.261242.88487.5611.980.84212.86 (−106.79, 129.39)

Cost-effectiveness

The incremental cost per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery was estimated at £7.53. Variability around the estimate of cost-effectiveness for the principal outcome is shown in the cost-effectiveness plane displayed in Figure 1, providing a graphical presentation of the distribution of the bootstrapped cost-effectiveness pairs for IMN. Although the majority of the bootstrapped samples fall in the north east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, some bootstrapped samples fall in all four quadrants, resulting in a problem when interpreting negative incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A negative ICER might represent improved outcomes and lower costs as a result of IMN, or worse outcomes and higher costs. This means that a meaningful ordering of the bootstrapped samples, which is required to make the CI surrounding the ICER interpretable, is very difficult. Under these circumstances, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, which summarise the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness, represent the appropriate approach to representing the uncertainty surrounding the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for the principal outcome measure is shown in Figure 2. This indicates the probabilities that IMN is cost-effective according to notional willingness to pay thresholds held by decision makers for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery. At the notional willingness to pay threshold of £100 for each inpatient hour averted, the probability that IMN is cost-effective was estimated at 0.67. This increases to 0.77 at a notional willingness to pay threshold of £1000.

image

Figure 1.  Cost effectiveness plane: incremental costs and incremental effects.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 2.  Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, probability that IMN is cost-effective.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Sensitivity analyses

The estimates of the costs and consequences of IMN reported in this paper were derived from a rigorously conducted RCT, with the uncertainty surrounding the ceiling cost-effectiveness ratio that decision-makers would consider acceptable dealt with through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. However, we also performed sensitivity analyses to determine the impact that uncertainty surrounding individual parameter values might have on the incremental cost-effectiveness for the principal outcome. Varying hospital occupancy rates to 10% greater or 10% less than revealed by March 2005 to December 2006 hospital data varied the ICER to £10.69 and £4.89 respectively. Changing the per diem costs for each level of hospital maternity care to the mean Department of Health reference costs marginally increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to £9.46; varying these costs to the upper and lower inter-quartile limits reduces (increases) the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to £0.44 (and £12.68) respectively. The sensitivity analysis for the per diem costs of each level of neonatal care, varied to the upper and lower inter-quartile limits for Department of Health reference costs, had minimal effects on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (£5.31 and £9.74 respectively).

Mean net benefits

Mean net benefits were estimated for alternative willingness to pay thresholds for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery (Table 4). Assuming that Rc equals £100 for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery generates a mean net benefit to the health services attributable to IMN of £98.13 (i.e., there is a net gain to the health services in monetary terms). If Rc is increased as high as £5000 for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery, the mean net benefit increases to £7805.

Table 4.   Mean net benefit of IMN, calculated for alternative willingness to pay thresholds per unit of outcome
Willingness to pay thresholdHour of hospital admission averted
Mean net benefit95% CI*
  1. CI, confidence interval.

  2. *Non-parametric bootstrap estimation using 1000 replications, bias corrected.

0−59(−145, 23)
10001514(−2.55, 5.402)
20003086(−4.454, 10.887)
30004659(−6.684, 16.351)
40006232(−8.915, 21.814)
50007805(−11.142, 27.278)

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

This study demonstrates that IMN increases overall health service costs. When combined with clinical effectiveness data from the IMOP trial, IMN generates an incremental cost per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery of £7.53, yielding a positive net monetary benefit for each additional use of IMN at willingness to pay thresholds as low as £40. This conclusion remains relatively robust following extensive sensitivity analyses that account for uncertainty surrounding the values of parameters incorporated into the economic evaluation and for uncertainty surrounding the willingness to pay threshold for the primary clinical outcome.

The probability that IMN is cost-effective approaches 0.7 at seemingly low willingness to pay thresholds for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery. However, our results should be viewed in the light of the clinical findings from the IMOP trial, showing that the reduction in hospital admission to delivery interval was not significant.

There are several strengths to our study. It was based on a large RCT in which bias was eliminated through random allocation of women to the study. The study presented in this paper was based on rigorous methods, which included an extensive sensitivity analysis, methods for handling uncertainty and the latest health economic evaluation methods. Moreover, the induction of labour protocol which was developed by the hospital and followed by the trial14 was generalisable to other UK settings. There are three possible limitations of this work that should be borne in mind by readers. First, although our primary outcome measure has clinical relevance when evaluating the benefits of cervical ripening agents, decision makers such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) usually recommend preference based measures, such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for economic evaluation purposes.15,16 It was considered that the QALY metric would not be relevant in this clinical setting as the potential effects of IMN are likely to be limited to a restricted time frame for both mother and infant. Indeed, it is likely that important characteristics of maternity care, such as the ability to make decisions during labour, cannot be detected by traditional health benefit measures such as QALYs.17 However, since previous research has indicated that women are able to express clear preferences for maternity care,18 willingness to pay and stated preference discrete choice experiment methods could, in principle, be used to estimate their preferences for alternative attributes of care that might be important in this setting. These preferences, in turn, could be used to inform decision makers willingness to pay values for outcomes of interventions such as cervical ripening with IMN, as well as other secondary outcomes in the trial.

A second limitation of our study was that we primarily derived our costs from the Princess Royal Maternity hospital in Glasgow. Although our cost accounting was comprehensive and included all significant cost items, whose values were calculated according to established principles in economic theory, alternative accounting methods applied in different jurisdictions may generate different cost estimates. We addressed this issue, in part, by performing sensitivity analyses that applied national reference costs to the main estimates of resource utilisation and this did not significantly affect the final cost-effectiveness results. Nevertheless, cost estimates derived using rigorous accounting methods from a broader profile of hospital settings are likely to increase the generalisability of our study results.

A final limitation was that wider costs, such as those borne to women, partners or carers, were not included in this study. Widespread implementation of IMN on an outpatient (at home) basis may increase broader societal costs, such as increased care by partners, more time off work and increased child care requirements for dependents. Alternatively, it may mean that more women are satisfied with the process of their labour and are faced with fewer personal costs. This remains to be elucidated by economic studies in this area that adopt a broader societal, rather than health service, perspective.

Economic evidence in the area of induction of women generally suggests that an unfavourable cervix prior to induction of labour significantly increases the rate of caesarean delivery.19,20 As caesarean delivery is the most costly type of delivery,21 this has important implications for the NHS. Our study found no statistically significant differences in the rate of caesarean delivery between the two groups, suggesting that IMN did not achieve a positive effect in reduced caesarean section rates.

Although we were not able to demonstrate overall cost savings attributable to IMN, we did find that women receiving IMN spent less time in the prenatal assessment ward, and this accounted for the largest cost difference between the trial groups. Similar to our findings, another study of women receiving intensive dose vaginal dinoprostone in pre-induction cervical priming has shown shortening of the period of pre-labour hospital stay for women22 although no cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Higher doses of IMN administered on an outpatient (at home) basis might have an even greater effect on reducing prenatal assessment ward stay, although this has yet to be investigated.

Further research is needed to confirm the merits of higher doses of IMN or other cervical ripening agents on an outpatient (at home) basis. In addition, value of information methodology based on data from our study could potentially be used to inform sample size and data requirements for future economic evaluations in this area.23,24 Care providers need to be more aware of the costs associated with delayed induction in post-term pregnancy and the benefits of at home induction in low risk women. One possible option would be to advise care providers about more optimal configurations of care for women to save costs, maximise bed space and possibly improve women’s experiences.

Disclosure of interests

Wellbeing did not play any role in the study design; collection, analysis, interpretation of the data; writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The authors have no other competing interests.

Contributions to authorship

Oya Eddama was responsible for the collection of data, analysis and interpretation of results, and writing of the paper. Stavros Petrou was responsible for the proposal and design of the study, as well as supervision of the work in this paper. Liz Schroeder was responsible for initial collection of cost data as well as aiding the final analysis. Shrikant Bollapragada was responsible for recruitment of patients, collection of data and execution of the clinical study. Fiona Mackenzie was responsible for the clinical proposal, design and supervision of the clinical study. John Norrie was responsible for the clinical study proposal, design and analysis of clinical data. Margaret Reid was responsible of clinical study proposal and design of the clinical study and for the interviews with the subjects as well as holding focus groups with the midwives. Jane Norman was responsible for the clinical study proposal, design, analysis of clinical data, supervision of the clinical work and was the Chief Investigator. All authors contributed to drafting the final manuscript.

Details of ethics approval

The clinical study was approved by the North Glasgow University NHS Trust ethics committee and written informed consent was gained prior to randomisation.

Funding

The IMOP Trial and the economic evaluation were funded by Wellbeing. The National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit is funded by the Department of Health, England. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the funding bodies.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

We should like to thank the midwives and nurses at the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, who assisted with the collection of staff resource inputs, as well as all the women who participated in the trial. We should also like to thank members of the finance team at the hospital who completed our research instruments.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  • 1
    Caughey AB, Stotland NE, Washington AE, Escobar GJ. Maternal and obstetric complications of pregnancy are associated with increasing gestational age at term. AJOJ 2007;196:155.e16.
  • 2
    Chwalisz K, Garfield RE. Nitric oxide as the final metabolic mediator of cervical ripening. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2458.
  • 3
    Ledingham MA, Thomson AJ, Greer IA, Norman JE. Nitric oxide in parturition. BJOG 2000;7:58193.
  • 4
    Rayburn W, Tassone S, Pearman C. Is cervidil appropriate for outpatient cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:S63.
  • 5
    Voss DH, Cumminsky KC, Cook VD, Nethers MS, Spinnato JA, Gall SA. Effect of three concentrations of intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening. J Matern Fetal Med 1996;5:18693.
  • 6
    Bullarbo M, Eriksson Orrskog M, Andersch B, Bjorn A, Granstrom L, Norstrom A, et al. Outpatient vaginal administration of the nitric oxide donor isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening and labor induction postterm: a randomized controlled study. AJOG 2007;196:50.e15.
  • 7
    Bollapragada SS, MacKenzie F, Norrie J, Eddama O, Petrou S, Reid M, et al. Randomised placebo controlled trial of outpatient (at home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) prior to induction of labour -clinical trial with analyses of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability. The IMOP Study. BJOG 2009; DOI: DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02216.x
  • 8
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • 9
    Mugford M, Hutton G, Fox-Rushby J. Methods for economic evaluation alongside a multicentre trial in developing countries: a case study form the WHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1998;12:7597.
  • 10
    Department of Health. National Schedule for Reference Costs. London: DoH, 2006.
  • 11
    Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000;19:321936.
  • 12
    Black WC. The cost-effectiveness plane: A graphical representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990;10:2125.
  • 13
    Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18(2 Suppl):S6880.
  • 14
    Kurup A, Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Tham KF, Tay D, Ratnam SS. Induction of labour in nulliparas with poor cervical score: oxytocin or prostaglandin vaginal pessaries? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;31:2236.
  • 15
    Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:13003.
  • 16
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2004.
  • 17
    Longworth L, Ratcliffe J, Boulton M. Investigating women’s preferences for intrapartum care: home versus hospital births. Health Soc Care Community 2001;9:40413.
  • 18
    Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001;28:25463.
  • 19
    Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Pateisky N, Kimberger O, Chalubinski K, Mayerhofer K, et al. Influence of labour induction on obstetric outcomes in patients with prolonged pregnancy: a comparison between elective labour induction and spontaneous onset of labour beyond term. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2005;117:28792.
  • 20
    Hoffman MK, Vahratian A, Sciscione AC, Troendle JF, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:102934.
  • 21
    Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Baskett TF. Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:54955.
  • 22
    Tan LK, Tay SK. Two dosing regimens for preinduction cervical priming with intravaginal dinoprostone pessary: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:90712.
  • 23
    Karnon J. Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis. Health Policy 2002;61:32947.
  • 24
    Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1103.