Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callister LC (2004) Making meaning: women’s birth narratives. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 33(4):508–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hallgren A et al (1995) Womens perceptions of childbirth education before and after education and birth. Midwifery 11(3):130–137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Waldenstrom U (1999) Experience of labor and birth in 1111 women. J Psychosom Res 47(5):471–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Waldenstrom U et al (2004) A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth Issues Perinat Care 31(1):17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bryanton J et al (2008) Predictors of women’s perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 37(1):24–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carquillat P et al (2016) How does delivery method influence factors that contribute to women’s childbirth experiences? Midwifery 43:21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mercer RT, Ferketich SL (1994) Maternal-infant attachment of experienced and inexperienced mothers during infancy. Nurs Res 43(6):344–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hinic K (2016) Predictors of breastfeeding confidence in the early postpartum period. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 45(5):649–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):638–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gottvall K, Waldenstrom U (2002) Does a traumatic birth experience have an impact on future reproduction? Int J Obstet Gynaecol 109(3):254–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. MacKenzie IZ (2006) Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium. Reproduction 131(6):989–998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson J, Redshaw M (2013) Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(10):1159–1167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grivell RM et al (2012) Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(2):198–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ehrenthal DB et al (2010) Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mozurkewich EL et al (2011) Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11:19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):793–797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dannenbring D et al (1997) Predictors of childbirth pain and maternal satisfaction. J Behav Med 20(2):127–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stock SJ et al (2012) Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. Br Med J 344:e2838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):151–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Caughey AB et al (2009) Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 151(4):252–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):813–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dencker A et al (2010) Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 10:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saisto T et al (2001) Psychosocial predictors of disappointment with delivery and puerperal depression—a longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(1):39–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walker KF et al (2015) Childbirth experience questionnaire: validating its use in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pedersen A et al (2018) Validierung der deutschen Übersetzung des Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ2) (under review)

  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):308–318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Waldenstrom U et al (1996) The childbirth experience: a study of 295 new mothers. Birth Issues Perinat Care 23(3):144–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Boulvain M et al (2001) Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 15(2):131–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):899–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kobayashi N, Lim BH (2015) Induction of labour and intrapartum care in obese women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 29(3):394–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.e12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):773–784

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):56–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hodnett ED et al (2013) Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:1–113

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Nora K. Schaal, Josefine Albert & Martin Heil

  2. Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Tanja Fehm

  3. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Anya Pedersen

  4. Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, HELIOS University Hospital Wuppertal, University Witten/Herdecke, Wuppertal, Germany

    Markus Fleisch & Philip Hepp

Authors
  1. Nora K. Schaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanja Fehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josefine Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Heil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anya Pedersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Markus Fleisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philip Hepp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nora K. Schaal.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaal, N.K., Fehm, T., Albert, J. et al. 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 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05150-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05150-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation