Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Primary and secondary outcomes, sub-group by trust and process outcomes

From: Evaluation of a bespoke training to increase uptake by midwifery teams of NICE Guidance for membrane sweeping to reduce induction of labour: a stepped wedge cluster randomised design

  Before training (n =1417) After training (n = 1356) RR (95% CI) P value
Primary outcomes
 Women offered and accepting membrane sweepinga 629 (44.4%) 634 (46.8%) 0.90 (0.71–1.13) 0.37
 Mean average (SD) number of membrane sweeps per woman 0.603 (0.795) 0.627 (0.787) Rate ratio: 0.83 (0.67–1.01) 0.068
Secondary outcomes
 Onset of labourb
  Induced 323 (22.8%) 328 (24.2%) 1.04 (0.80–1.34) 0.77
 Mode of birthc
  Instrumental 235 (16.6%) 233 (17.2%) 1.06 (0.75–1.48) 0.75
  Emergency CS 187 (13.2%) 177 (13.1%) 0.89 (0.63–1.26) 0.52
Sub-group by Trust
 BWNFT – Adherence to Trust guidance
  All women swept at 40 weeks (39 + 4 – 40 + 3) 245/921 (26.6%) 253/868 (29.1%) 0.91 (0.64–1.29) 0.596
  All eligible women swept for a second time at 41 weeksd (40 + 4 – 41 + 3) 78/504 (15.5%) 62/509 (12.2%) 0.75 (0.41–1.36) 0.339
 BHH – Adherence to Trust (NICE) guidance
  Nulliparous women swept at 40 weeks (39 + 4 – 40 + 3) 47/174 (27.0%) 59/173 (34.1%) 1.81 (0.84–3.92) 0.131
  All eligible nulliparous women swept for second time at 41 weeksc (40 + 4 – 41 + 3) 10/80 (12.5%) 17/88 (19.3%) 2.28 (0.59–8.87) 0.232
  Multiparous women swept at 41 weeks (40 + 4 – 41 + 3) 38/152 (25.0%) 46/160 (28.8%) 0.78 (0.32–1.88) 0.574
 Process outcomes
  Sweeps offered but declined 80 (5.6%) 97 (7.2%)   
  No record of sweeping 708 (50.0%) 625 (46.1%)   
 Reason if abandoned
  Os closed 30 (4.8%) 28 (4.4%)   
  Unable to reach 38 (6.0%) 20 (3.2%)   
  Unable to sweep 50 (7.9%) 42 (6.6%)   
  Other 13 (2.1%) 9 (1.4%)   
 Location of sweep
  Community 400 (63.6%) 431 (68.0%)   
  Hospital 227 (36.1%) 195 (30.8%)   
  1. RRs are estimated using a generalised linear mixed model and are adjusted for clustering and underlying temporal trends
  2. aThe estimated ICC (95% CI) was 0.060 (0.000–0.118) estimated using a one-way analysis of variance on the proportions scale
  3. bFor onset of labour, the risk of being induced compared to spontaneous and not labouring combined was compared before and after training
  4. cFor mode of birth, the risk of instrumental birth compared to SVB and CS combined was compared before and after training. Separately, emergency CS was compared to SVB, instrumental and elective CS combined, before and after training
  5. dEligible women: pregnant at 41 + 3 weeks