Christiane Schwarz1, Mechthild M Gross2, Peter Heusser3, Bettina Berger3. 1. Hannover Medical School, Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, Germany; Institute for Integrative Medicine (IfIM), Gerhard Kienle Lehrstuhl für Medizintheorie, Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin, University Witten/Herdecke, Germany. Electronic address: Schwarz.Christiane@mh-hannover.de. 2. Hannover Medical School, Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, Germany. 3. Institute for Integrative Medicine (IfIM), Gerhard Kienle Lehrstuhl für Medizintheorie, Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin, University Witten/Herdecke, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: induction of labour (IOL) is a common procedure in high income countries. It may be conducted for medical as well as non-medical reasons. Women's views on induction of labour have not extensively been evaluated as yet. Also, women's preferences for certain methods of induction including alternative and complementary methods need further exploration in order to meet their expectations and needs. DESIGN AND SETTING: we published a short online questionnaire on women'views and experiences with IOL. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: we asked for indication and gestational age at induction; method of induction, duration of labour and mode of birth. We also asked for the extent of desired, and experienced support and participation in decision-making. Within four weeks of being online, 698 women answered the questionnaire. Most frequent reasons for induction were postmaturity (51.7%), doctor's recommendation (31.6%) and medical complications (25.6%). Most women were induced with misoprostol or dinoprostone, but nearly half of the respondents were also offered, or asked for, complementary and alternative methods (CAM). 50% or more women would have preferred more information on alternatives to IOL, methods of IOL, side effects of the drugs, information on alternatives (59.2%) and on the medication (55.3%). Many would have wished for more support (49.9%) with decision-making (55.2%), and more time (54.1%). KEY CONCLUSION: women' expectations and needs regarding IOL are widely unmet in current clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: there is a need for evidence-based information and decisional support for pregnant women who need to decide how to proceed once term is reached.
OBJECTIVE: induction of labour (IOL) is a common procedure in high income countries. It may be conducted for medical as well as non-medical reasons. Women's views on induction of labour have not extensively been evaluated as yet. Also, women's preferences for certain methods of induction including alternative and complementary methods need further exploration in order to meet their expectations and needs. DESIGN AND SETTING: we published a short online questionnaire on women'views and experiences with IOL. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: we asked for indication and gestational age at induction; method of induction, duration of labour and mode of birth. We also asked for the extent of desired, and experienced support and participation in decision-making. Within four weeks of being online, 698 women answered the questionnaire. Most frequent reasons for induction were postmaturity (51.7%), doctor's recommendation (31.6%) and medical complications (25.6%). Most women were induced with misoprostol or dinoprostone, but nearly half of the respondents were also offered, or asked for, complementary and alternative methods (CAM). 50% or more women would have preferred more information on alternatives to IOL, methods of IOL, side effects of the drugs, information on alternatives (59.2%) and on the medication (55.3%). Many would have wished for more support (49.9%) with decision-making (55.2%), and more time (54.1%). KEY CONCLUSION:women' expectations and needs regarding IOL are widely unmet in current clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: there is a need for evidence-based information and decisional support for pregnant women who need to decide how to proceed once term is reached.
Authors: David A Crosby; Claire O'Reilly; Helen McHale; Fionnuala M McAuliffe; Rhona Mahony Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: William A Grobman; Madeline M Rice; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Elizabeth A Thom; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Annette Perez-Delboy; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Kim A Boggess; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 91.245
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