Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

Eikelder, Mieke L.G. ten; Meent, Marieke M. Van De; Mast, Kelly; Rengerink, Katrien Oude; Jozwiak, Marta; Graaf, Irene M. de; Scholtenhuis, M. A.G.Holswilder Olde; Roumen, Frans J.M.E.; Porath, Martina; Loon, A.J. van; Akker, Eline S. van den; Rijnders, Robbert J.P.; Feitsma, A. Hanneke; Adriaanse, Albert H.; Müller, M. A.; Leeuw, J.W. de; Visser, Harry; Woiski, Mallory; Weerd, Sabina Rombout De; Unnik, Gijs A. van; Pernet, Paula; Versendaal, Hans; Mol, Ben Willem J.; Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M.

doi:10.1055/s-0036-1584523

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our study did have participants with positive attitudes toward induction, similar to other studies 24 . Few studies have asked patients about specific labor induction interventions 11,25–27 . However, one study found that compared to oral misoprostol, more women in the Foley catheter group would prefer to receive a different method in the future 27 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

From “disappointing” to “fantastic”: Women's experiences with labor induction in a U.S. tertiary hospital

Danilack

Siegel-Reamer²,

Lum

et al. 2023

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe series of interventions that comprise labor induction shape patient experiences; however, patient perceptions are not always considered when structuring the process of care. Through qualitative interviews, we elucidated women's expectations and experiences regarding labor induction.MethodsLabor induction patients were recruited from a United States tertiary care hospital's postpartum mother–baby unit and invited to participate in semi‐structured qualitative interviews. Interview questions included expectations and experiences of the labor induction process, side effects and health outcomes of concern, reflections on personal tolerance of different interventions, and thoughts about an ideal process.ResultsBetween April and September 2018, 36 women were interviewed. The labor induction process involved a wide range of experiences; when asked to characterize labor induction in one word, responses ranged from horrible, frustrating, and terrifying to simple, fast, and smooth. Inductions were often described as longer than what was expected. The most polarizing induction method was the Foley balloon catheter. Women's concerns regarding side effects largely centered on the health of their baby, and an ideal induction involved fewer interventions.ConclusionsExperiences with labor induction vary greatly and are related to expectations. The way interventions are introduced influences women's perceptions of control and their ultimate level of contentment with the birthing process. Attention to experiences and preferences has the potential to improve quality of care through communication, shared decision‐making, and education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

From “disappointing” to “fantastic”: Women's experiences with labor induction in a U.S. tertiary hospital

Danilack

Siegel-Reamer²,

Lum

et al. 2023

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The references have been assessed but not incorporated into the review. Only seven of these trials are likely to contribute data for this review and are mainly small trials (Khatib 2019; Lim 2018; Osoti 2018; Souizi 2018; ten Eikelder 2017; Tulek 2018; Viteri 2019). We imputed the data for these trials and this resulted in no changes in terms of the direction or strength of the evidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

100

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low‐dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.Search methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, , the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.Selection criteriaClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra‐amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra‐amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very‐low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low‐quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate‐quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 ...

show abstract

“…30 33 34 42 43 52 53 63 74 None of the trials used a validated patient-reported outcome instrument for labor induction; however, until very recently, there have been no validated questionnaires for labor induction. 101 While WHO and NICE guidelines recommend that patient needs and preferences be taken into consideration when selecting a method of labor induction, ACOG guidelines do not specify that maternal preference be considered. 2 4 In cases, in which labor induction methods have similar efficacy and safety profiles, we recommend that physicians and health care providers take into account patient preference and overall labor experience.…”

Section: Limitations Of Trials On Labor Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 4 In cases, in which labor induction methods have similar efficacy and safety profiles, we recommend that physicians and health care providers take into account patient preference and overall labor experience. 101 102…”

Section: Limitations Of Trials On Labor Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Viteri

Sibai

2018

AJP Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induction of labor is a common obstetric procedure performed in nearly a quarter of all deliveries in the United States. Pharmacological (prostaglandins, oxytocin) and/or mechanical methods (balloon catheters) are commonly used for labor induction; however, there is ongoing debate as to which method is the safest and most effective. This narrative review discusses key limitations of published trials on labor induction, including the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials directly comparing specific methods of induction, heterogeneous trial populations, and wide variation in the protocols used and outcomes reported. Furthermore, the majority of published trials were underpowered to detect significant differences in the most clinically relevant efficacy and safety outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, neonatal mortality). By identifying the limitations of labor induction trials, we hope to highlight the importance of quality published data to better inform guidelines and drive evidence-based treatment decisions.

show abstract

Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

From “disappointing” to “fantastic”: Women's experiences with labor induction in a U.S. tertiary hospital

From “disappointing” to “fantastic”: Women's experiences with labor induction in a U.S. tertiary hospital

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About