N Dupuis1, L Loussert1, P L M de Vries2, O Parant1, C Vayssière1,3, P Guerby4,5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands. 3. CERPOP (Center for Research in Epidemiology and POPulation Health), Team SPHERE, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France. guerby.p@chu-toulouse.fr. 5. Infinity, CNRS, Inserm UMR 1291, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France. guerby.p@chu-toulouse.fr.
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.
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.
Authors: E D Hodnett; M E Hannah; J A Weston; A Ohlsson; T L Myhr; E E Wang; S A Hewson; A R Willan; D Farine Journal: Birth Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 3.689
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: Anna E Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; Thomas van den Akker; Eva Rydahl; Katrien Beeckman; Annick Bogaerts; Lorena Binfa; Lucy Frith; Mechthild M Gross; Björn Misselwitz; Berglind Hálfdánsdóttir; Deirdre Daly; Paul Corcoran; Jean Calleja-Agius; Neville Calleja; Miriam Gatt; Anne Britt Vika Nilsen; Eugene Declercq; Mika Gissler; Anna Heino; Helena Lindgren; Ank de Jonge Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mieke L G Ten Eikelder; Femke Neervoort; Katrien Oude Rengerink; Gert J van Baaren; Marta Jozwiak; Jan-Willem de Leeuw; Irene de Graaf; Maria G van Pampus; Maureen Franssen; Martijn Oudijk; Paulien van der Salm; Mallory Woiski; Paula Jm Pernet; A Hanneke Feitsma; Huib van Vliet; Martina Porath; Frans Roumen; Erik van Beek; Hans Versendaal; Marion Heres; Ben Willem J Mol; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 3.007