Dataset Information

Methods of induction of labor and women's experience: a population-based cohort study with mediation analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Negative childbirth experience may affect mother wellbeing and health. However, it is rarely evaluated in studies comparing methods of induction of labor (IoL).

Aim

To compare women's experience of IoL according to the method, considering the mediating role of interventions and complications of delivery.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

The 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.

Discussion

Cervical ripening was associated with a less positive experience of childbirth, whatever the method, only partly explained by interventions and complications of delivery.

Conclusion

Counselling and support of women requiring cervical ripening might be enhanced to improve the experience of IoL.

SUBMITTER: Blanc-Petitjean P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.