A cost analysis of inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin E2 cervical priming for induction of labour: results from the OPRA trial
Pamela L. Adelson A F , Garry R. Wedlock B , Chris S. Wilkinson C , Kirsten Howard D , Robert L. Bryce E and Deborah A. Turnbull AA School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email: deborah.turnbull@adelaide.edu.au
B Health Informatics, Performance, Planning and Outcomes Unit, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: garry.wedlock2@health.sa.gov.au
C Maternal Fetal Medicine, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia. Email: chris.wilkinson@health.sa.gov.au
D Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: kirsten.howard@sydney.edu.au
E Centre for Perinatal Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia. Email: robert.bryce@health.sa.gov.au
F Corresponding author. Email: pamela.adelson@adelaide.edu.au
Australian Health Review 37(4) 467-473 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13081
Submitted: 22 April 2013 Accepted: 29 July 2013 Published: 10 September 2013
Abstract
Objective To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons.
Methods Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention.
Results Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI −$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI −$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman.
Conclusions Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming.
What is known about the topic? Induction of labour is a common obstetric intervention. For women with low-risk, prolonged pregnancies who require cervical priming there has been increased interest in whether this period of waiting for the cervix to ‘ripen’ can be achieved at home. Outpatient priming has been reported to reduce hospital costs and improve maternal satisfaction. However, few studies have actually examined the cost of outpatient priming for induction of labour.
What does this paper add? This is the first paper in Australia to both assess the full cost of outpatient cervical priming and to compare it with usual (inpatient) care. This is the first costing paper from a randomised controlled trial directly comparing inpatient and outpatient priming with prostaglandin E2.
What are the implications for practitioners? For women with prolonged, low-risk pregnancies, a program of outpatient cervical priming can potentially reduce in-hospital costs and free up labour ward beds by avoiding an additional overnight hospitalisation.
Additional keywords: cost analysis, outpatient priming, PGE2 priming.
References
[1] Scheil W, Scott J, Catcheside B, Sage L. Pregnancy outcome in South Australia 2010. Adelaide: Pregnancy Outcome Unit, SA Health, Government of South Australia; 2012.[2] Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 858–63.
| Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12388964PubMed |
[3] Stitely ML, Browning J, Fowler M, Gendron RT, Gherman RB. Outpatient cervical ripening with intravaginal misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 684–8.
| Outpatient cervical ripening with intravaginal misoprostol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXntlGqurc%3D&md5=a13829be9782518519529dbf181f37dfCAS | 11042301PubMed |
[4] O’Brien JM, Mercer BM, Cleary NT, Sibai BM. Efficacy of outpatient induction with low-dose intravaginal prostaglandin E2: a randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173 1855–9.
| Efficacy of outpatient induction with low-dose intravaginal prostaglandin E2: a randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK28XptlSntg%3D%3D&md5=39a1234744f1d7b135f05df5ea3e652bCAS | 8610775PubMed |
[5] Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25 23–31.
| 12548322PubMed |
[6] Awartani KA, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O. A prospective study of induction of labor with prostaglandin vaginal gel: ambulatory versus in-patient administration. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1999; 26 162–5.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7jtlehsQ%3D%3D&md5=6bd79b89af85cfe2ae01182783ff65aaCAS | 10668144PubMed |
[7] Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Dowswell T. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; CD007372
| 19370687PubMed |
[8] National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Induction of labour. NICE Clinical Guidelines 70. London: National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health; 2008.
[9] Farmer KC, Schwartz WJ, Rayburn WF, Turnbull G. A cost-minimization analysis of intracervical prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Clin Ther 1996; 18 747–56.
| A cost-minimization analysis of intracervical prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s%2FjsVantw%3D%3D&md5=357344a19e0ae428de508d7806b4566cCAS | 8879901PubMed |
[10] Agarwal K, Batra A, Batra A, Dabral A, Aggarwal A. Evaluation of isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor for postdated pregnancy in an outpatient setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012; 118 205–9.
| Evaluation of isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor for postdated pregnancy in an outpatient setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XptVyisbw%3D&md5=6c479daf20778acdfa800ab7855e51a6CAS | 22721632PubMed |
[11] Osman I, MacKenzie F, Norrie J, Murray HM, Greer IA, Norman JE. The ‘PRIM’ study: a randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2 gel with the nitric oxide donor isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening before the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 1012–21.
| The ‘PRIM’ study: a randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2 gel with the nitric oxide donor isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening before the induction of labor at term.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XjtFajtL0%3D&md5=2f1afcdee9335700240bfe2b225105c9CAS | 16580290PubMed |
[12] Bollapragada SS, MacKenzie F, Norrie JD, 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 and acceptability. The IMOP study. BJOG 2009; 116 1185–95.
| 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 and acceptability. The IMOP study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtVGit7rN&md5=eba9edfe90b2055bea9154f2e8846136CAS | 19624440PubMed |
[13] Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Ryan P, et al Two center RCT of outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening for induction of labour with PGE2. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 S137
| Two center RCT of outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening for induction of labour with PGE2.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 1070–6.
| Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15507923PubMed |
[15] Mogos MF, August EM, Salinas-Miranda A, Sultan DH, Salihu HM. A systematic review of quality of life measures in pregnant and postpartum mothers. Appl Res Qual Life 2013; 8 219–250.
| A systematic review of quality of life measures in pregnant and postpartum mothers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23734167PubMed |
[16] Department of Health and Ageing. Hospital reference manual, national hospital cost data collection. Canberra: Australian Government; 2007.
[17] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Economic Indicators. Canberra: ABS; 2012.
[18] Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; 2009. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/Publishing.nsf/Content/health-casemix-ardrg1.htm [verified 8 December 2009].
[19] Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ 2000; 320 1197–200.
| How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3kslSmsA%3D%3D&md5=cfe0d78593bbb2ac3f88e106305ded8bCAS | 10784550PubMed |
[20] Dean AG, Sullivan KM, Soe MM. OpenEpi: open source epidemiologic statistics for public health, Version 2.3.1; 2011. Available at http://www.OpenEpi.com [verified 6 June 2011].
[21] Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen C. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 751–6.
| Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnltFeqtg%3D%3D&md5=783191f861ed939c6d23f9afa5e31927CAS | 11704164PubMed |
[22] Eddama O, Petrou S, Schroeder L, Bollapragada SS, Mackenzie F, Norrie J, et al The cost-effectiveness of outpatient (at-home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate prior to induction of labour. BJOG 2009; 116 1196–203.
| The cost-effectiveness of outpatient (at-home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate prior to induction of labour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtVGit7rO&md5=1daf9bbe5f69ab5ea960628eb842895aCAS | 19485990PubMed |
[23] Upadhyaya N, Childs K, Neiger R, Caudle MR. Ambulatory cervical ripening in term pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1999; 44 363–6.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3lt1yltw%3D%3D&md5=123269382f3d9ef7e9e87723b35ce955CAS | 10319307PubMed |
[24] Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy S, Austin K, Welsh A, et al Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13 25
| Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXnsVKgt7o%3D&md5=8389c29212ee5861950d4d23fe29e14bCAS | 23356673PubMed |
[25] Neale E, Pachulski A, Whiterod S, McGuiness E, Gallagher N, Wallace R. Outpatient cervical ripening prior to induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22 634–5.
| Outpatient cervical ripening prior to induction of labour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXlsFymsw%3D%3D&md5=31b6c03f2bdcedd19ba609526b562b6bCAS | 12554251PubMed |
[26] Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Bryce R, Wilkinson C. The impact of outpatient priming for induction of labour on midwives’ work demand, work autonomy and satisfaction. Women and Birth 2013; 26 207–12.
| 23561927PubMed |
[27] Oster C, Adelson P, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Inpatient versus outpatient cervical priming for induction of labour: therapeutic landscapes and women’s preferences. Health Place 2011; 17 379–85.
| Inpatient versus outpatient cervical priming for induction of labour: therapeutic landscapes and women’s preferences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21185217PubMed |
[28] Reid M, Lorimer K, Norman JE, Bollapragada SS, Norrie J. The home as an appropriate setting for women undertaking cervical ripening before the induction of labour. Midwifery 2011; 27 30–5.
| The home as an appropriate setting for women undertaking cervical ripening before the induction of labour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20045584PubMed |
[29] Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Bryce R, Fereday J, Wilkinson C. Psychosocial outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor. Birth 2013; 40 75–80.
| Psychosocial outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
