Literature DB >> 27341122

Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term.

Mieke L G Ten Eikelder1, Marieke M van de Meent1, Kelly Mast2, Katrien Oude Rengerink3, Marta Jozwiak1, Irene M de Graaf3, Marloes A G Holswilder-Olde Scholtenhuis4, Frans J M E Roumen5, Martina M Porath6, Aren J van Loon7, Eline S van den Akker8, Robbert J P Rijnders9, A Hanneke Feitsma10, Albert H Adriaanse11, Moira A Muller12, Jan W de Leeuw13, Harry Visser14, Mallory D Woiski15, Sabina Rombout-de Weerd16, Gijs A van Unnik17, Paula J M Pernet18, Hans Versendaal19, Ben W Mol20, Kitty W M Bloemenkamp21.   

Abstract

Objective We assessed experience and preferences among term women undergoing induction of labor with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Study Design In 18 of the 29 participating hospitals in the PROBAAT-II trial, women were asked to complete a questionnaire within 24 hours after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire about expectancy and experience of labor and asked women whether they would prefer the same method again in a future pregnancy. Results The questionnaire was completed by 502 (72%) of 695 eligible women; 273 (54%) had been randomly allocated to oral misoprostol and 229 (46%) to Foley catheter. Experience of the duration of labor, pain during labor, general satisfaction with labor, and feelings of control and fear related to their expectation were comparable between both the groups. In the oral misoprostol group, 6% of the women would prefer the other method if induction is necessary in future pregnancy, versus 12% in the Foley catheter group (risk ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.90; p = 0.02). Conclusion Women's experiences of labor after induction with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter are comparable. However, women in the Foley catheter group prefer more often to choose a different method for future inductions. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27341122     DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Perinatol        ISSN: 0735-1631            Impact factor:   1.862


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Women's expectations and experiences of labor induction - a questionnaire-based analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Moa Strandberg; Tove Wallstrom; Eva Wiberg-Itzel
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 3.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

Authors:  Marieke Dt de Vaan; Mieke Lg Ten Eikelder; Marta Jozwiak; Kirsten R Palmer; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Ben Willem J Mol; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-18

4.  Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

Authors:  Robbie S Kerr; Nimisha Kumar; Myfanwy J Williams; Anna Cuthbert; Nasreen Aflaifel; David M Haas; Andrew D Weeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-06-22

5.  Prospective observational study investigating the effectiveness, safety, women's experiences and quality of life at 3 months regarding cervical ripening methods for induction of labor at term-The MATUCOL study protocol.

Authors:  Guillaume Ducarme; Stephanie Martin; Veronique Chesnoy; Lucie Planche; Marie-Pierre Berte; Elodie Netier-Herault
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study dataset. A dataset of 602 women with hypertensive disease in pregnancy, in India, randomised to either Foley catheter or oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

Authors:  Shuchita Mundle; Hillary Bracken; Vaishali Khedikar; Jayashree Mulik; Brian Faragher; Thomas Easterling; Simon Leigh; Paul Granby; Alan Haycox; Mark A Turner; Kate Lightly; Miroslava Ebringer; Zarko Alfirevic; Beverly Winikoff; Andrew D Weeks
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2021-09-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.