Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study

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

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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]).

Conclusion

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.

Trial registration

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK) induction of labour London RCOG Press. 2008.

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Amorosa JMH, Stone JL (2015) Outpatient cervical ripening. Semin Perinatol 39:488–494. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the mothers for participating in the study.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France

    N. Dupuis, L. Loussert, O. Parant, C. Vayssière & P. Guerby

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands

    P. L. M. de Vries

  3. CERPOP (Center for Research in Epidemiology and POPulation Health), Team SPHERE, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

    C. Vayssière

  4. Infinity, CNRS, Inserm UMR 1291, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

    P. Guerby

Authors
  1. N. Dupuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Loussert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. L. M. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Parant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Vayssière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Guerby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors participated in the editing of this manuscript and approved the final version for publication. ND was involved in the conception and planning of the study and the acquisition and interpretation of data. LL was involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data and provided statistical advice. PLDV was involved in the interpretation of the data and the revision of the article. OP and CV participated in the interpretation of the results and made suggestions for revisions. PG conceived and designed the study, was involved in the analysis and interpretation of data, and the cowriting and critical revision of the article. N Dupuis: Protocol development, Data collection, Manuscript writing L Loussert: Data analysis, Data management PL de Vries: Manuscript writing O Parant: Manuscrip writing C Vayssiere: Data analysis and manuscript writing P Guerby: Project development, Data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Guerby.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declration of Helsinki. 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.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all women.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dupuis, N., Loussert, L., de Vries, P.L.M. et al. Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307, 1781–1788 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06652-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06652-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation