Patient Perspectives on Outpatient versus Inpatient Cervical Ripening for Induction of Labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare patient perceived control and experience with outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of a quality improvement initiative focused on the impact to patients of incorporating outpatient cervical ripening into routine practice. Postpartum inpatients who had elected for outpatient cervical ripening (outpatients) and those who met criteria for outpatient cervical ripening but opted for an inpatient setting (inpatients) were invited to participate in the study. Patients completed the Perceived Control in Childbirth Scale, and scores were compared between outpatient and inpatient groups using Mann-Whitney U test. In addition, semistructured questions elicited feedback prior to hospital discharge, and these qualitative data were analyzed using iterative thematic analysis. RESULTS: -value = 0.49), out of a maximum score of 72 (representing the highest level of perceived control). Both groups reported similarly high levels of perceived control, regardless of cervical ripening setting. In the qualitative analysis, pain was the most common theme in both groups. Inpatients reported more distress despite access to stronger pain medications. Outpatients utilized a variety of distraction techniques and expressed gratitude for their setting more than inpatients. CONCLUSION: Outpatient cervical ripening can be a patient-centered solution to obstetric throughput challenges arising from increased numbers of inductions. Those who underwent outpatient cervical ripening had similar perceived control to those who underwent inpatient cervical ripening, suggesting that individual patient preferences are most important in determining the optimal setting for care. The patients' reported experiences identified focus areas for process improvement efforts and future research, including improving patient education regarding expectations and innovating new pain management strategies for cervical ripening. KEY POINTS: · Patient experiences must inform patient-centered care.. · Perceived control with cervical ripening was high.. · Pain with cervical ripening was the most cited theme..
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".