RESEARCH PAPER
Women’s experiences and perceptions of induction of labour: Results from a German online-survey
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Applied Sciences Tyrol, Innsbruck, Austria
Publish date: 2017-09-19
Submission date: 2017-04-12
Final revision date: 2017-06-12
Acceptance date: 2017-08-20
 
Eur J Midwifery 2017;1(September):2
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Induction of labour is common, with a large variety of indications and methods. Women’s views and experiences still need to be explored in more depth. This study evaluated outcomes and childbirth experiences with different induction methods as perceived by women.

Methods:
A secondary data analysis of an online-survey with 698 participants comprising closed-ended and open-ended questions evaluating method and reason for induction, gestational age, mode of birth, assessment of received information, support and participation in decision-making, as well as the individual experience of labour and birth, was performed in 2015. Answers to open-ended questions were coded and assigned to main categories by inductive-content analysis. Subgroup analyses comparing frequencies of answer options or main categories dependent on induction methods and indications were conducted.

Results:
Women frequently expressed a need for more information and participation, and reported negative childbirth experiences. Women being offered castor oil or other complementary and alternative methods less often lacked information. However, these methods were markedly less effective to induce labour, but when successful were associated with reduced rates of epidural pain relieve and caesarean sections. Moreover, compared with prostaglandins, complementary methods were associated with significantly more positive personal experiences and fewer burdensome or traumatic births.

Conclusions:
Our findings revealed a substantial lack of information and participation associated with many women perceiving negatively labour and childbirth following induction. Adequate honest information that gives way to realistic expectations about labour induction and enablement of participation are important prerequisites to improve personal experience and need to be enhanced in order to raise childbirth satisfaction.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Christoph Zenzmaier   
University of Applied Sciences Tyrol, Innsbruck, Austria
 
REFERENCES (42):
1. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour; 2011.
2. Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen. Ergebnisse für das Erfassungsjahr 2015 - Geburtshilfe. Berlin; 2016.
3. Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:CD004945. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub3.
4. Saccone G, Berghella V. Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:629–36. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.004.
5. Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Jacob L, Nicholson JM, Kaimal A, et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:761–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a6a4d0.
6. Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:249.e1-249.e16. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.016
7. Zenzmaier C, Leitner H, Brezinka C, Oberaigner W, König-Bachmann M. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor: a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4354-4.
8. Glantz JC. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:235–40.
9. Bailit JL, Gregory KD, Reddy UM, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Hibbard JU, Ramirez MM, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes by labor onset type and gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:245.e1-245.e12. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.051.
10. Grivell RM, Reilly AJ, Oakey H, Chan A, Dodd JM. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:198–203. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01298.x.
11. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-63, W53-63.
12. Darney BG, Caughey AB. Elective induction of labor symposium: nomenclature, research methodological issues, and outcomes. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57:343–62. doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000029.
13. Glantz JC. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:363. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000114.
14. Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King VJ, et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:84. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-84.
15. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:CD001338. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3.
16. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:633–42. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(96)00374-2
17. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, Wen SW, Walker M, Gao Y, et al. 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. 2016;123:346–54. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13456.
18. Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L, Pecks U, Maass N, Rath W. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: a national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;187:85–9. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.11.026.
19. Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women's perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour--a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:56–61. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004.
20. Heimstad R, Romundstad PR, Hyett J, Mattsson L, Salvesen KA. Women's experiences and attitudes towards expectant management and induction of labor for post-term pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:950–6. doi:10.1080/00016340701416929.
21. Gatward H, Simpson M, Woodhart L, Stainton MC. Women's experiences of being induced for post-date pregnancy. Women Birth. 2010;23:3–9. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2009.06.002.
22. Wagner M. Off-label use of misoprostol in obstetrics: a cautionary tale. BJOG. 2005;112:266–8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00445.x.
23. Emslie MJ, Campbell MK, Walker KA, Robertson S, Campbell A. Developing consumer-led maternity services: a survey of women's views in a local healthcare setting. Health Expect. 1999;2:195–207. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00059.x
24. Taylor SJ, Armour CL. Measurement of consumer preference for treatments used to induce labour: a willingness-to-pay approach. Health Expect. 2000;3:203–16. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00098.x
25. Hildingsson I, Karlström A, Nystedt A. Women's experiences of induction of labour--findings from a Swedish regional study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51:151–7. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01262.x.
26. Henderson J, Redshaw M. Women's experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:1159–67. doi:10.1111/aogs.12211.
27. Schwarz C, Gross MM, Heusser P, Berger B. Women's perceptions of induction of labour outcomes: Results of an online-survey in Germany. Midwifery. 2016;35:3–10. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002.
28. Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report. 2003;8:597–606.
29. Williamson GR. Illustrating triangulation in mixed-methods nursing research. Nurse Res. 2005;12:7–18. doi: 10.7748/nr2005.04.12.4.7.c5955
30. Smith CA, Crowther CA, Grant SJ. Acupuncture for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD002962. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002962.pub3.
31. Smith CA. Homoeopathy for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD003399. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003399.
32. Garry D, Figueroa R, Guillaume J, Cucco V. Use of castor oil in pregnancies at term. Altern Ther Health Med. 2000;6:77–9.
33. Azhari S, Pirdadeh S, Lotfalizadeh M, Shakeri MT. Evaluation of the effect of castor oil on initiating labor in term pregnancy. Saudi Med J. 2006;27:1011–4.
34. Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD003099. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003099.pub2.
35. Kehl S, Welzel G, Ehard A, Berlit S, Spaich S, Siemer J, et al. Women's acceptance of a double-balloon device as an additional method for inducing labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168:30–5. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.12.018.
36. Kehl S, Faschingbauer F, Beckmann MW, Dammer U. Methoden zur Geburtseinleitung: Vorteile und Risiken individuell abwägen. Hebamme. 2016;29:177-180. doi:10.1055/s-0042-108395.
37. Fendesack I. Rizinusöl – eine kontrovers diskutierte Methode zur Geburtseinleitung. Hebamme. 2013;26:228-232. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1345498.
38. Christiaens W, Bracke P. Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:26. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-7-26.
39. Carlsson I, Ziegert K, Nissen E. The relationship between childbirth self-efficacy and aspects of well-being, birth interventions and birth outcomes. Midwifery. 2015;31:1000–7. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.05.005.
40. Salomonsson B, Gullberg MT, Alehagen S, Wijma K. Self-efficacy beliefs and fear of childbirth in nulliparous women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34:116–21. doi:10.3109/0167482X.2013.824418.
41. Schwartz L, Toohill J, Creedy DK, Baird K, Gamble J, Fenwick J. Factors associated with childbirth self-efficacy in Australian childbearing women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:29. doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0465-8.
42. AQUA-Institut. Quality indicators. National data evaluation 2014 period: Obstetrics. Göttingen; 2015.
eISSN:2585-2906