Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study.
Choice
Foley catheter
Induction of labour
Misoprostol
PGE2 pessary
Satisfaction
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
03
03
2022
accepted:
30
05
2022
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
16
6
2022
entrez:
15
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate women's choice in the method of labour induction between oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and the Foley catheter. To compare women's satisfaction according to their choice and to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction. We conducted a comparative, prospective cohort study of 520 women who chose their preferred method for labour induction, in a French tertiary hospital, from July 2019 to October 2020. Before and after the delivery, they were asked to argue their choice and to evaluate their satisfaction through the use of questionnaires. The primary outcome was global level of satisfaction. Of the 520 women included, 67.5% of women chose oral misoprostol compared to 21% PGE2 pessary and 11.5% Foley catheter. Regarding global satisfaction, we found no significant difference between the three groups: 78.4%, 68.8% and 71.2% (p = 0.107) for, respectively, oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and Foley catheter. Factors that seem to improve women's satisfaction were nulliparity (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.19-3.53]), delivery within 24 h after the start of induction (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI [2.02-6.14]) and adequate information (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI [1.869.64]). Factors associated with lower satisfaction rates were postpartum haemorrhage (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.30-0.88]) and caesarean section (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.17-0.54]). Women satisfaction rates were not different between the three methods, when chosen by the patients themselves. These finding should encourage caregivers to promote shared decision making when possible. The protocol was approved by the French ethics committee for research in obstetrics and gynaecology (CEROG, reference number 2019-OBS-0602) on 1st June 2019.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35704114
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06652-8
pii: 10.1007/s00404-022-06652-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Oxytocics
0
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1781-1788Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Declercq E, Belanoff C, Iverson R (2020) Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 20:458. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03137-x
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03137-x
pubmed: 32787802
pmcid: 7425604
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton N, Medley N, Dias S et al (2016) Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123:1462–1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13981
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13981
Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, van den Akker T, Rydahl E, Beeckman K, Bogaerts A, Binfa L et al (2020) Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: a multinational cross-sectional study. PLOS Med 17:e1003103. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003103
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003103
pubmed: 32442207
pmcid: 7244098
Le BlondelCoulmBonnetGoffinetRay BBCFC, National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys (2017) Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016 results from the French national perinatal surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017(46):701–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.002
Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, Crenn-Hebert C, Gaudineau A, Perrotte F et al (2019) État des lieux des pratiques de déclenchement en France. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil Sénologie 47:555–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.05.002
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G et al (2018) Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 379:513–523. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
pubmed: 30089070
pmcid: 6186292
ten Eikelder ML, Neervoort F, Rengerink KO, Jozwiak M, de Leeuw J-W, de Graaf I et al (2013) Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-67
doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-67
pubmed: 23506128
pmcid: 3610263
Chen W, Xue J, Peprah M, Wen S, Walker M, Gao Y et al (2016) A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123:346–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13456
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456
Grace Ng YH, Aminuddin AA, Tan TL, Kuppusamy R, Tagore S, Yeo GSH (2022) Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the safety in the first 12 h, efficacy and maternal satisfaction of a double balloon catheter and prostaglandin pessary for induction of labour. Arch Gynecol Obstet 305:11–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06090-y
doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06090-y
pubmed: 33973051
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK) induction of labour London RCOG Press. 2008.
de Santé HA (2009) Declenchement artificiel du travail a partir de 37 semaines d’amenorrhee. Rev Sage-Femme 8:53–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sagf.2008.12.013
doi: 10.1016/j.sagf.2008.12.013
Hodnett E (2002) Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review*1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:S160–S172. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.121141
doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.121141
pubmed: 12011880
Hodnett ED, Hannah ME, Weston JA, Ohlsson A, Myhr TL, Wang EEI et al (1997) Women’s evaluations of induction of labor versus expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. Birth 24:214–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.1997.tb00593.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1997.tb00593.x
pubmed: 9460311
Adler K, Rahkonen L, Kruit H (2020) Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; a two-year cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 20:415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03106-4
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03106-4
pubmed: 32693773
pmcid: 7372821
Schaal NK, Fehm T, Albert J, Heil M, Pedersen A, Fleisch M et al (2019) Comparing birth experience and birth outcome of vaginal births between induced and spontaneous onset of labour: a prospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05150-8
doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05150-8
pubmed: 30976970
Coates D, Goodfellow A, Sinclair L (2020) Induction of labour: experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians. Women Birth 33:e1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.002
doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.002
pubmed: 31208865
Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA (1987) The labour agentry scale: psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health 10:301–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770100503
doi: 10.1002/nur.4770100503
pubmed: 3671777
Dencker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M (2010) Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 10:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-81
doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-81
pubmed: 21143961
pmcid: 3008689
Carquillat P, Vendittelli F, Perneger T, Guittier M-J (2017) Development of a questionnaire for assessing the childbirth experience (QACE). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17:279. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1462-x
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1462-x
pubmed: 28854894
pmcid: 5577741
Beckmann M, Thompson R, Miller Y, Prosser SJ, Flenady V, Kumar S (2017) Measuring women’s experience of induction of labor using prostaglandin vaginal gel. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 210:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.12.032
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.12.032
pubmed: 28056435
ten Eikelder M, van de Meent M, Mast K, Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, de Graaf I et al (2016) Women’s experiences with and preference for induction of labor with oral misoprostol or foley catheter at term. Am J Perinatol 34:138–146. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1584523
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1584523
pubmed: 27341122
Soet JE, Brack GA, DiIorio C (2003) Prevalence and predictors of women’s experience of psychological trauma during childbirth. Birth 30:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00215.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00215.x
pubmed: 12581038
Colón I, Clawson K, Hunter K, Druzin ML, Taslimi MM (2005) Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:747–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.051
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.051
pubmed: 15746667
Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A (2014) Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3
pubmed: 25208049
pmcid: 6513439
Wang L, Wang G, Cao W, Guo L, Hu H, Li Y et al (2020) Comparison of the cook vaginal cervical ripening balloon with prostaglandin E2 insert for induction of labor in late pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302:579–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05597-0
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05597-0
pubmed: 32617665
Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A (2005) Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour—a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 123:56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004
pubmed: 15905017
Henderson J, Redshaw M (2013) Women’s experience of induction of labor a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand:n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12211
doi: 10.1111/aogs.12211
Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Bryce R, Fereday J, Wilkinson C (2013) Psychosocial outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor. Birth 40:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12035
doi: 10.1111/birt.12035
pubmed: 24635460
Amorosa JMH, Stone JL (2015) Outpatient cervical ripening. Semin Perinatol 39:488–494. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.014
doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.014
pubmed: 26365009
Stephenson E, Borakati A, Simpson I, Eedarapalli P (2020) Foley catheter for induction of labour: a UK observational study. J Obstet Gynaecol 40:1064–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2019.1676213
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1676213
pubmed: 31793372
Helmig RB, Hvidman LE (2020) An audit of oral administration of Angusta® (misoprostol) 25 µg for induction of labor in 976 consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy in a university hospital in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99:1396–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13876
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13876
pubmed: 32311758
Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander V-M, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Nupponen I, Paavonen J et al (2016) Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol 36:618–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.62
doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.62
pubmed: 27078202
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D (2013) A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 3:e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570
pubmed: 23293244
pmcid: 3549241