Women's expectations and experiences of labor induction - a questionnaire-based analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Although labor induction is a commonly used procedure in obstetrical care, there are limited data on its psycho-emotional effects on the woman. This study analysed the expectations and experiences of women in different routes of labor induction. The study's primary aim was to compare women's delivery experience if induced by orally administrated misoprostol (OMS) compared with misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI). Secondly, an evaluation of women's general satisfaction with induced labor was made, and factors associated with a negative experience.Methods
Primiparous women (n = 196) with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks of gestation, with a Bishop's score ≤ 4 planning labor induction were randomly allocated to receive either OMS (Cytotec®) or MVI (Misodel®). Data were collected by validated questionnaires, the Wijma Delivery Expectation/Experience Questionnaire (A + B). The pre-labor part of the survey (W-DEQ version A) was given to participants to complete within 1 hour before the start of induction, and the post-labor part of the questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was administered after birth and collected before the women were discharged from hospital.Results
It was found that 11.8% (17/143) reported a severe fear of childbirth (W-DEQ A score ≥ 85). Before the induction, women with extreme fear had 3.7 times increased risk of experiencing labor induction negatively (OR 3.7 [95% CI, 1.04-13.41]).Conclusion
No difference was identified between OMS and MVI when delivery experience among women induced to labor was analysed. Severe fear of childbirth before labor was a risk factor for a negative experience of labor induction.Trial registration
Clinical trial register number NCT02918110 . Date of registration on May 31, 2016.
SUBMITTER: Strandberg M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8097967 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare childbirth experiences and experience of labor pain in primiparous women who had received high- vs low-dose oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labor.Material and methodsA multicenter, parallel, double-blind randomized controlled trial took place in six Swedish labor wards. Inclusion criteria were healthy primiparous women at term with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies, cephalic fetal presentation, spontaneous onset of labor, confirmed delayed labor progress and ruptured membranes. The randomized controlled trial compared high- vs low-dose oxytocin used for augmentation of a delayed labor progress. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire version 2 (CEQ2) was sent to the women 1 month after birth. The CEQ2 consists of 22 items in four domains: Own capacity, Perceived safety, Professional support and Participation. In addition, labor pain was reported with a visual analog scale (VAS) 2 hours postpartum and 1 month after birth. The main outcome was the childbirth experience measured with the four domains of the CEQ2. The clinical trial number is NCT01587625.ResultsThe CEQ2 was sent to 1203 women, and a total of 1008 women (83.8%) answered the questionnaire. The four domains of childbirth experience were scored similarly in the high- and low-dose oxytocin groups of women: Own capacity (P = .36), Perceived safety (P = .44), Professional support (P = .84), Participation (P = .49). VAS scores of labor pain were reported as similar in both oxytocin dosage groups. Labor pain was scored higher 1 month after birth compared with 2 hours postpartum. There was an association between childbirth experiences and mode of birth in both the high- and low-dose oxytocin groups.ConclusionsDifferent dosage of oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labor did not affect women's childbirth experiences assessed through CEQ2 1 month after birth, or pain assessment 2 hours or 1 month after birth.
| S-EPMC8248083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the effectiveness of four commonly used induction methods.This randomized trial compared four induction methods: misoprostol alone, Foley alone, misoprostol-cervical Foley concurrently, and Foley-oxytocin concurrently. Women undergoing labor induction with full-term (37 weeks of gestation or greater), singleton, vertex-presenting gestations, with no contraindication to vaginal delivery, intact membranes, Bishop score 6 or less, and cervical dilation 2 cm or less were included. Women were enrolled only once during the study period. Our primary outcome was time to delivery. Neither patients nor health care providers were blinded to assigned treatment group because examinations are required for placement of all methods; however, research personnel were blinded during data abstraction. A sample size of 123 per group (n=492) was planned to compare the four groups pairwise (P?.008) with a 4-hour reduction in delivery time considered clinically meaningful.From May 2013 through June 2015, 997 women were screened and 491 were randomized and analyzed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the four treatment groups. When comparing all induction method groups, combination methods achieved a faster median time to delivery than single-agent methods (misoprostol-Foley: 13.1 hours, Foley-oxytocin: 14.5 hours, misoprostol: 17.6 hours, Foley: 17.7 hours, P<.001). When censored for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity, women who received misoprostol-Foley were almost twice as likely to deliver before women who received misoprostol alone (hazard ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-2.59) or Foley alone (hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.87 1.39-2.52), whereas Foley-oxytocin was not statistically different from single-agent methods.After censoring for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity, misoprostol-cervical Foley resulted in twice the chance of delivering before either single-agent method.ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01916681.
| S-EPMC5127406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the optimal Foley catheter balloon volume (30-mL vs. 80-mL) and the maximum time for cervical ripening (12 hours vs. 24 hours) to improve vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours of induction.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital in China. Women with a term singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membrane and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6) were randomly allocated, in 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive either one of the four treatments: (1) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, (2) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours, (3) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, and (4) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included cesarean section rate and maternal/neonatal morbidity. Data were analyzed on a per-protocol basis.ResultsFive hundred and four women were recruited and randomized (126 women in each group); nine women did not receive the assigned intervention. More women achieved vaginal delivery within 24 hours in 12-hour Foley catheter groups than in the 24-hour Foley catheter groups (30-mL/12 hours: 54.5%, 30-mL/24 hours: 33.1%, 80-mL/12 hours: 46.4%, 80-mL/24 hours: 24.0%, p < 0.001). Cesarean section rates and the incidence of chorioaminonitis were comparable among four groups. After adjustment for confounding factors, both ripening time and balloon size did not affect the proportion of women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction.ConclusionFor women with an unfavorable cervix at term, induction of labor with a Foley catheter is safe and effective. Higher balloon volume (80-mL vs. 30-mL) and longer ripening time (24 hours vs. 12 hours) would not shorten induction to delivery interval or reduce cesarean section rate.Trial registrationChinese Clinical trial registry (ChiCTR-TRC-13003044).
| S-EPMC4556187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare childbirth experiences in women randomly assigned to either induction of labour at 41 weeks or to expectant management until 42 weeks, in the Swedish Post-term Induction Study.DesignA register-based, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial.SettingWomen were recruited at 14 hospitals in Sweden, 2016-2018.ParticipantsWomen with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy were recruited at 41 gestational weeks.InterventionsThe women were randomly assigned to induction of labour at 41 weeks (induction group, n=1381) or expectant management until 42 weeks (expectant management group, n=1379).Outcome measuresAs main outcome, women's childbirth experiences were measured using the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire version 2 (CEQ2), in 656 women, 3 months after the birth at three hospitals. As exploratory outcome, overall childbirth experience was measured in 1457 women using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS 1-10) within 3 days after delivery at the remaining eleven hospitals.ResultsThe total response rate was 77% (2113/2760). There were no significant differences in childbirth experience measured with CEQ2 between the groups (induction group, n=354; expectant management group, n=302) in the subscales: own capacity (2.8 vs 2.7, p=0.09), perceived safety (3.3 vs 3.2, p=0.06) and professional support (3.6 vs 3.5, p=0.38) or in the total CEQ2 score (3.3 vs 3.2, p=0.07), respectively. Women in the induction group scored higher in the subscale participation (3.6 vs 3.4, p=0.02), although with a small effect size (0.19). No significant difference was observed in overall childbirth experience according to VAS (8.0 (n=735) vs 8.1 (n=735), p=0.22).ConclusionsThere were no differences in childbirth experience, according to CEQ2 or overall childbirth experience assessed with VAS, between women randomly assigned to induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Overall, women rated their childbirth experiences high.Trial registration numberISRCTN26113652.
| S-EPMC8031013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with α2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births. RESULTS:Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, χ2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH<7.0 (P = 0.04, Fisher Exact). CONCLUSION:There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.
| S-EPMC6953875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAs labor induction rates continue to increase, so has the interest in performing induction in an outpatient setting for pregnancies defined as low-risk. Twenty women participated in the pilot study of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing inpatient and outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol. This study aimed to explore women's experiences of outpatient induction of labor and their views on this as an alternative method to inpatient labor induction.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted, from November 2021 to January 2022 with eight women randomized to outpatient induction and four women randomized to inpatient induction. Verbatim transcribed interviews were analyzed using Graneheim and Lundman's content analysis.ResultsThree main categories emerged: the required framework around outpatient labor induction, what felt better at home and what felt safer at the hospital. To feel secure at home, women needed sufficient information, close follow-up while at home, and an easy-to-administer induction method. Outpatient labor induction gave women the opportunity of constant support from the partner and increased freedom of movement and self-expression. Some expressed relief over being randomized to inpatient labor induction, because of easy access to health providers, fetal monitoring, and not risking giving birth before arrival to the hospital. Women stressed the importance of being given a choice.ConclusionsOutpatient labor induction contributed to a positive birth experience and should be considered as an alternative for women with low-risk pregnancies. Shared decision-making, including the opportunity for women to change their mind, is essential as induction and early labor affects women's whole childbirth experience.
| S-EPMC10655146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ProblemResearchers have prioritized understanding and differentiating the pathophysiologic mechanisms to improve precision in diagnosis and individualization of care, however the experiences of women with labor dystocia have been underexamined.BackgroundManagement of labor dystocia has been identified as an opportunity for reducing the rate of unnecessary cesarean births and the associated risks to women and their infants. This meta-synthesis explores women's experiences of labor dystocia to enrich the discussion of care practices and contextualize discussions of shared decision making in what is most meaningful to women.QuestionsHow does prolonged labor influence women's experience of birth and motherhood? What are women's experiences with decision-making about labor augmentation during prolonged labor?MethodsSandelowski and Barroso's meta-synthesis approach was used to analyze primary qualitative studies of women's experiences of labor dystocia. Through inductive thematic synthesis and reciprocal translation, themes identified in qualitative research, quotations, and coded meaning units were aggregated and interpreted into derived categories and themes.FindingsFourteen qualitative studies were analyzed. Women experienced labor dystocia as a transition from healthy labor to abnormal labor requiring medical support consistent with Transition Theory by Meleis. Six new categories and thirty themes were identified. Each category and theme reflects a distinct component of the experience of labor dystocia.Discussion/conclusionThere is wide variation in the way women experience labor dystocia. Facilitation of the transition from healthy labor to labor dystocia can be supported by a fluid, adaptable method of caring for women in the face of uncertainty and loss of choice.
| S-EPMC7018597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNegative childbirth experience may affect mother wellbeing and health. However, it is rarely evaluated in studies comparing methods of induction of labor (IoL).AimTo compare women's experience of IoL according to the method, considering the mediating role of interventions and complications of delivery.MethodsWe used data from the MEDIP prospective population-based cohort, including all women with IoL during one month in seven French perinatal networks. The experience of IoL, assessed at 2 months postpartum, was first compared between cervical ripening and oxytocin, and secondarily between different cervical ripening methods. Mediation analyses were used to measure the direct and indirect effects of cervical ripening on maternal experience, through delivery with interventions or complications.FindingsThe response rate was 47.8% (n = 1453/3042). Compared with oxytocin (n = 541), cervical ripening (n = 910) was associated less often with feelings that labor went 'as expected' (adjusted risk ratio for the direct effect 0.78, 95%CI [0.70-0.88]), length of labor was 'acceptable' (0.76[0.71-0.82]), 'vaginal discomfort' was absent (0.77[0.69-0.85]) and with lower global satisfaction (0.90[0.84-0.96]). Interventions and complications mediated between 6 and 35% of the total effect of cervical ripening on maternal experience. Compared to the dinoprostone insert, maternal experience was not significantly different with the other prostaglandins. The balloon catheter was associated with less pain.DiscussionCervical ripening was associated with a less positive experience of childbirth, whatever the method, only partly explained by interventions and complications of delivery.ConclusionCounselling and support of women requiring cervical ripening might be enhanced to improve the experience of IoL.
| S-EPMC8442398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data regarding the preferred induction method in women with obesity is scarce. The current study was aimed at comparing pharmacological and mechanical induction in this population. This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2016−2020, in nulliparas with a pre-pregnancy body mass index >30. Inclusion criteria were singleton-term pregnancies, bishop score < 5, and indication for induction. Patients were randomized to induction by a cervical ripening balloon (CRB) or a 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone insert. The primary outcome was delivery rate within 24 h. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery, cesarean section rate, maternal and neonatal outcomes, satisfaction, and anxiety. The study population comprised of 83 women in the CRB group and 81 in the dinoprostone group. There was a significant difference in delivery rates within 24 h and time to delivery between the dinoprostone and CRB groups (45% vs. 71%, p = 0.017 and 49.3 ± 6.8 h vs. 23.5 ± 5.9 h, p = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences in cesarean delivery rates or maternal and neonatal outcomes, though CRB induction was associated with a significantly lower rate of tachysystole. Induction with CRB was accompanied by higher satisfaction and lower anxiety. In summary, CRB induction is associated with shorter time to delivery, higher satisfaction, and lower anxiety compared to PGE2 in women with obesity, without compromising maternal or neonatal outcomes.
| S-EPMC9029246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Induction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes. METHODS:A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score???5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion. RESULTS:Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72?±?1.85 vs. 2.25?±?0.55?min p?=?0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p?=?0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p?=?0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7?±?9.4 vs 29.6?±?11.5?h p?=?0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p?=?0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p?=?0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different. CONCLUSION:Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.
| S-EPMC7257160 | biostudies-literature