Advertisement

Comparing birth experience and birth outcome of vaginal births between induced and spontaneous onset of labour: a prospective study

  • Nora K. SchaalEmail author
  • Tanja Fehm
  • Josefine Albert
  • Martin Heil
  • Anya Pedersen
  • Markus Fleisch
  • Philip Hepp
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

In developed countries, around 25% of all births involve labour induction. Studies have indicated that labour induction negatively influences the birth experience as well as the birth process. However, the impact of labour induction when only considering vaginal deliveries has not been studied yet, which was the purpose of the present study.

Methods

186 women who gave birth vaginally took part in this prospective study. 95 women gave birth after spontaneous onset of labour (SL-group) and 91 women received a labour induction (LI-group). Eight to 72 h after birth, the women filled in the revised version of the standardised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire, which examines the birth experience in four dimensions (Own Capacity, Perceived Safety, Participation and Professional Support). Medical details regarding birth and fetal outcomes were taken from the medical records.

Results

Birth outcomes (the number of epidural anaesthesia, the duration of birth, birth risks and childbirth injuries) as well as fetal outcomes (APGAR after 1 and 5 min and arterial cord pH) did not differ between the groups. Regarding the subjective birth experience, the LI-group indicated significantly lower values for Perceived Safety and Participation compared to the SL-group, while there were no differences for the dimensions Own Capacity and Professional Support.

Discussion

Successful labour induction resulting in a vaginal birth did not negatively influence birth and fetal outcomes and only partly affected the women’s birth experience. The negative impact of labour induction on the dimensions Perceived Safety and Participation should sensitize midwives in order to provide optimal support.

Keywords

Labour induction Birth experience Birth process Vaginal deliveries 

Notes

Author contributions

NKS: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. TF: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing. JA: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. MH: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing. AP: manuscript writing/editing. MF: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing. PH: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing.

Funding

The authors thank the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung for the financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf in Germany. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Callister LC (2004) Making meaning: women’s birth narratives. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 33(4):508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hallgren A et al (1995) Womens perceptions of childbirth education before and after education and birth. Midwifery 11(3):130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waldenstrom U (1999) Experience of labor and birth in 1111 women. J Psychosom Res 47(5):471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waldenstrom U et al (2004) A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth Issues Perinat Care 31(1):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryanton J et al (2008) Predictors of women’s perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 37(1):24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carquillat P et al (2016) How does delivery method influence factors that contribute to women’s childbirth experiences? Midwifery 43:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mercer RT, Ferketich SL (1994) Maternal-infant attachment of experienced and inexperienced mothers during infancy. Nurs Res 43(6):344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hinic K (2016) Predictors of breastfeeding confidence in the early postpartum period. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 45(5):649–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waldenstrom U et al (2006) Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 113(6):638–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottvall K, Waldenstrom U (2002) Does a traumatic birth experience have an impact on future reproduction? Int J Obstet Gynaecol 109(3):254–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubertsson C et al (2005) Depressive mood in early pregnancy and postpartum: prevalence and women at risk in a national Swedish sample. J Reprod Infant Psychol 23(2):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacKenzie IZ (2006) Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium. Reproduction 131(6):989–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson J, Redshaw M (2013) Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(10):1159–1167Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grivell RM et al (2012) Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(2):198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehrenthal DB et al (2010) Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mozurkewich EL et al (2011) Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Danielian P et al (1999) Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(8):793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dannenbring D et al (1997) Predictors of childbirth pain and maternal satisfaction. J Behav Med 20(2):127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stock SJ et al (2012) Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. Br Med J 344:e2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hildingsson I et al (2011) Women’s experiences of induction of labour—findings from a Swedish regional study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51(2):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caughey AB et al (2009) Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 151(4):252–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walker KF et al (2016) Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 374(9):813–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dencker A et al (2010) Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 10:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saisto T et al (2001) Psychosocial predictors of disappointment with delivery and puerperal depression—a longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(1):39–45Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker KF et al (2015) Childbirth experience questionnaire: validating its use in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedersen A et al (2018) Validierung der deutschen Übersetzung des Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ2) (under review) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neal JL et al (2010) “Active Labor’’ duration and dilation rates among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset: a systematic review. J Midwifery Womens Health 55(4):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Waldenstrom U et al (1996) The childbirth experience: a study of 295 new mothers. Birth Issues Perinat Care 23(3):144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jay A et al (2018) In labor or in limbo? The experiences of women undergoing induction of labor in hospital: findings of a qualitative study. Birth Issues Perinat Care 45(1):64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boulvain M et al (2001) Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 15(2):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gross MM et al (2009) Onset of labour: women’s experiences and midwives’ assessments in relation to first stage duration. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280(6):899–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheng YW et al (2009) The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(5):477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kobayashi N, Lim BH (2015) Induction of labour and intrapartum care in obese women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 29(3):394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bailit JL et al (2010) Maternal and neonatal outcomes by labor onset type and gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(3):245.e1–245.e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nicholson JM et al (2015) The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 122(6):773–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shetty A et al (2005) Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour—a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 123(1):56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hodnett ED et al (2013) Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:1–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyHeinrich-Heine-University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Clinic for Gynecology and ObstetricsHeinrich-Heine-UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of PsychologyUniversity of KielKielGermany
  4. 4.Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, HELIOS University Hospital WuppertalUniversity Witten/HerdeckeWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations