Labor induction information leaflets—Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To determine the extent to which a sample of NHS labor induction leaflets reflects evidence on labor induction. Setting Audit of labor induction patient information leaflets—local from WILL trial (When to Induce Labor to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension) internal pilot sites or national-level available online. Methods Descriptive analysis [n = 21 leaflets, 19 (one shared) in 20 WILL internal pilot sites and 2 NHS online] according to NHS “Protocol on the Production of Patient Information” criteria: general information (including indications), why and how induction is offered (including success and alternatives), and potential benefits and harms. Results All leaflets described an induction indication. Most leaflets (n = 18) mentioned induction location and 16 the potential for delays due to delivery suite workloads and competing clinical priorities. While 19 leaflets discussed membrane sweeping (17 as an induction alternative), only 4 leaflets mentioned balloon catheter as another mechanical method. Induction success (onset of active labor) was presented by a minority of leaflets (n = 7, 33%), as “frequent” or in the “majority”, with “rare” or “occasional” failures. Benefits, harms and outcomes following induction were not compared with expectant care, but rather with spontaneous labor, such as for pain (n = 14, with nine stating more pain with induction). Potential benefits of induction were seldom described [n = 7; including avoiding stillbirth (n = 4)], but deemed to be likely. No leaflet stated vaginal birth was more likely following induction, but most stated Cesarean was not increased (n = 12); one leaflet stated that Cesarean risks were increased following induction. Women's satisfaction was rarely presented (n = 2). Conclusion Information provided to pregnant women regarding labor induction could be improved to better reflect women's choice between induction and expectant care, and the evidence upon which treatment recommendations are based. A multiple stakeholder-involved and evidence-informed process to update guidance is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".