Literature DB >> 24635460

Psychosocial outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor.

Deborah Turnbull1, Pamela Adelson, Candice Oster, Robert Bryce, Jennifer Fereday, Chris Wilkinson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor, an increasingly common intervention, is often preceded by the application of an agent to "prime" or "ripen" the cervix. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare clinical, economic, and psychosocial outcomes of inpatient and outpatient cervical priming before induction of labor. In this paper we present the psychosocial outcomes.
METHODS: Women participating in a randomized controlled trial in two Australian metropolitan teaching hospitals completed questionnaires to measure anxiety and depression at enrollment, and to examine satisfaction, experiences, depression, and infant feeding 7 weeks after giving birth. Data analysis was by intention to treat and by having received the intervention as intended (approximately 50% in each group).
RESULTS: Of 1,004 eligible women, 85 percent consented (n = 407, outpatient; n = 414 inpatient). No statistically significant or clinically relevant differences were found in immediate anxiety, depression, or infant feeding. Small, statistically significant differences favoring outpatient priming were found in seven of the nine subscales in the 7-week postpartum questionnaire. The direction of the effect was maintained, mostly with a larger effect size in women who received the intervention.
CONCLUSION: Women allocated to outpatient priming were more satisfied with their priming experience than women allocated to inpatient priming. Being informed that they could go home after cervical priming did not increase women's anxiety.
© 2013, Copyright the Authors, Journal compilation © 2013, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cervical priming; induction of labor; psychosocial outcomes; randomized controlled trial; women's satisfaction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24635460     DOI: 10.1111/birt.12035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  8 in total

1.  A Tribute to Nancy C. Chescheir, MD.

Authors:  Dwight J Rouse; Thomas W Riggs; John O Schorge
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 7.661

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

Authors:  N Dupuis; L Loussert; P L M de Vries; O Parant; C Vayssière; P Guerby
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  A snapshot of women's and clinicians' perceptions of the double balloon catheter for induction of labor.

Authors:  Sarah Waldron; Hannah Contziu; Olga Aleshin; Hala Phipps
Journal:  Eur J Midwifery       Date:  2022-05-30

4.  A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chris Wilkinson; Pamela Adelson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Outpatient Induction of Labor - Are Balloon Catheters an Appropriate Method?

Authors:  Werner Rath; Patrick Stelzl; Sven Kehl
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Gillian Ml Gyte; Vicky Nogueira Pileggi; Rachel Plachcinski; Alfred O Osoti; Elaine M Finucane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-27

7.  Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Karen Gerard; Pamela Adelson; Robert Bryce; Chris Wilkinson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour (OBLIGE): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Michelle R Wise; Joy Marriott; Malcolm Battin; John M D Thompson; Michael Stitely; Lynn Sadler
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.