Proportion and Outcome of Induction of Labor Among Mothers Who Delivered in Teaching Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia

Abstract

Background: Despite the induction of labor (IOL) having had some undesired consequences, it also has several benefits for maternal and perinatal outcomes. This study aimed to assess the proportion and outcome of IOL among mothers who delivered in Teaching Hospital, southwest Ethiopia.Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted from June 10 to June 20, 2019, among 294 mothers who gave birth between November 30, 2018, and May 30, 2019, by reviewing their cards using a structured checklist to assess the prevalence, outcome, and consequences of induction of labor. A binary logistic regression analysis was computed to look for the association between outcome variables and independent variables.Results: The prevalence of labor induction was 20.4%. The most commonly reported cause of induction was preeclampsia (41.6%). The factors associated with IOL were mothers aged 25–34 years [AOR = 2.55, 95% CI (1.18–5.50)] and ≥35 years [AOR = 10.6, 95% CI (4.20–26.9)], having no history of antenatal care [AOR = 2.12, 95% CI (1.10–4.07)], and being Primipara AOR = 2.33, 95% CI (1.18–3.24)]. Of the 60 induced mothers, 23.3% had failed induction. The proportion of mothers with dead fetal outcomes and maternal complications was 5 and 41.7%, respectively. The unfavorable Bishop Score before induction [AOR = 1.85, 95% CI (1.32–4.87)] and induction using misoprostol [AOR = 1.48, 95% CI (1.24–5.23)] were the factors associated with failed induction of labor.Conclusion: The prevalence of induced labor was considerably higher than rates in other Ethiopian studies; however, the prevalence of induction failure was comparable to other studies done in Ethiopia. The study found that Bishop's unfavorable score before induction and induction using misoprostol was the factor associated with unsuccessful induction. Therefore, the health professionals should confirm the favorability of the cervical status before the IOL to increase the success rate of induction of labor.

Induction of Labour in a District Hospital of Rural Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

“…Similar prevalence was seen in KMCTH, Kathmandu 19.70%, and Southwest Ethiopia 20.4%. 5 , 6 However the prevalence was 9.96% (8.37-11.55, 95% Confidence Interval) in Birat Medical Teaching Hospital. 7 The high volume deliveries in Terai region compared to Hilly region might attribute to the discrepancy in the finding.…”

Evaluation of the efficacy of labor induction with vaginal misoprostol in a low-risk pregnant women population

“…In our study, using a majority low-risk population (75% without any risk factor), we obtained a higher rate of vaginal delivery (71.4%, 140/196). Yosef and Getachew 15 performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with 294 mothers (undefined risk) who delivered in their service. The prevalence of labor induction was 20.4% (75% with oxytocin and 25% with vaginal misoprostol), and the most prevalent cause of induction was preeclampsia (41.6%).…”

Labor Induction

“…Furthermore, even after induction is done knowing all these risks, it might not achieve the intended labor and vaginal birth, and it may result in failed induction. However, while there is a well-accepted definition of IOL, the definition of a successful or failed induction of labor (FIOL) is less certain [22][23][24]. Most studies define FIOL as an inability to achieve vaginal delivery or birth through cesarean section (CS) [25][26][27].…”