Search

Objective: To explore women's experiences of mechanical labor induction using a balloon catheter with self-traction., Design: Descriptive qualitative., Setting: Birth unit of an urban hospital in Quebec, Canada., Participants: Fourteen women who experienced labor induction with a balloon catheter using self-traction., Methods: We conducted individual structured interviews between May 2022 and January 2023 to collect data that we subsequently analyzed using the manifest content analysis approach of Graneheim et al. We adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ)., Results: We identified five categories: Expectations, Pain or Comfort Experienced, Emotions Felt, Support From Nursing Staff, and Appreciation of the Procedure. The participants anticipated rapid, effective induction, expressed concerns about potential discomfort, and appreciated control of their experiences. We found a generally positive trend in terms of appreciation for all categories., Conclusion: The positive experiences of participants underline the promising potential of the balloon catheter method of labor induction with self-traction. Given the continuing growth in labor induction rates, it becomes necessary to continue efforts to offer services specifically geared to women's needs. Offering an additional option such as self-traction is a step in this direction., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The pedal-like self-traction device developed by Diane Croteau and Valérie Bohémier is now patented. Both were engaged in drafting the study protocol and writing the article but were not involved in data analysis. The other authors report no conflicts of interest or relevant financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 AWHONN, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To critically engage with the body project of induction of labour., Design: A nested, qualitative study that formed part of a feasibility Random Controlled Trial investigating different methods of outpatient induction of labour. The data reported in this article were gathered via interview with women and midwives involved in the trial. All the participants who took part in the trial presented as cisgender women., Findings: Analysis of 27 interview transcripts suggested that the expansion in choice of when, how and where to start labour can change the way decisions about labour onset is understood. The space needed for a new body project is emerging where distinctions between medicalised labour and spontaneous labour are less clear., Conclusion: The embodiment of the new technologies of induction for those involved in this study was both a facet of increased freedom and autonomy and a gendered discourse where the normative function of routine intervention appeared more complete., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no conflicts of interest to declare for this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Labour can be traumatic for women who perceive they are not involved in decisions affecting their care during labour. Our objective was to assess the relation between labour agentry and subsequent mental health., Design: Follow-up cohort study., Setting: U.S. Tertiary care center., Population: Participants from Utah who participated in the ARRIVE (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management) trial., Methods: During the ARRIVE trial, participants completed the Labor Agentry Scale twice, a validated questionnaire measuring perceived control of patients during childbirth. ARRIVE participants from Utah subsequently were asked to complete questions about mental health history and stressful events occurring since the trial, as well as surveys including the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PC-PTSD) screen, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screen. The lower quartile of both agentry measurements defined a person's ordinal agentry category, used for assessing cohort characteristics by exposure category. Continuous minimum agentry was included in adjusted modelling., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a mental health composite including a positive screen for depression, anxiety, or PTSD or self-report of a diagnosis or exacerbation since their delivery., Results: In all, 766 of 1042 (74%) people responded to the survey (median 4.4, range 2.5-6.4 years after delivery) and 753 had complete data for analysis. In unadjusted comparisons across ordinal agentry category, lower agentry was significantly associated with the primary composite endpoint, and depressive symptoms (test of trend p = 0.003 primary, p = 0.004 depression). Lower labour agentry scores were associated with incremental odds of the primary endpoint (1 SD [24 units], adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.21, 95% CI 1.41-1.03), driven by depressive symptoms or self-reported diagnosis (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.47-1.05)., Conclusions: Lower labour agentry at the time of birth was associated with a greater risk for mental health conditions years after delivery, indicating a potential opportunity for primary prevention of subsequent depression., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: High-quality health systems rely on care that centers on patient preferences. Realization of patient preferences can improve the birth experience. However, in the dynamic setting of birth, birth preferences can diverge from what is medically indicated. Through studying women and birthing peoples' experiences of unplanned labor procedures, we aimed to identify ways in which practitioners can support women and birthing people through unexpected or unwanted aspects of their delivery. Specifically, we focused on labor induction., Methods: In one large US academic center, women and birthing people participated in prenatal and postpartum surveys regarding their desires, expectations, and experiences of labor induction. From April to November 2021, participants were eligible if they showed discordance between having labor induction and whether it was initially wanted or expected. Interviews focused on attitudes toward birth preferences and outcomes, with attention to discordances. We analyzed interviews through a modified grounded theory approach., Results: Of 22 participants, our sample was predominantly white (91%). Participants in this sample reported discordance between wanting and experiencing (73%) and/or expecting and experiencing (54%) an induction. We identified two themes: "Discordance without mitigation is perceived as a negative experience" and "Practitioner interaction can buffer against negative experience" which includes three ways in which participants prefer support in instances of discordance: preparation, communication, and care and comfort. These methods of support foster patient autonomy and can lead to positive patient experiences., Conclusions: While medical systems should work to support patient preferences, our results suggest that patients can still have positive birth experiences, even when preferences are not fulfilled. Early practitioner preparation, positive communication, and responsive care and comfort may help to improve patient birth experience when challenges arise., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Sweden recently adopted new labor induction guidelines lowering the threshold for post-term pregnancies to 41+ weeks. Despite evidence-based foundation, these guidelines stirred controversy among maternity care professionals, who voiced concerns about potential risks and unintended consequences, such as a rising Caesarean section rate. Midwives also highlighted potential impacts on their roles, workload, and working environment; implications that could affect obstetricians and gynecologists as well. Investigating Swedish maternity care professionals' views on labor induction could benefit policymakers, managers, and birthing women alike., Aim: The aim of this study was to describe and compare midwives to obstetricians/gynecologists, with regards to their views on labor induction, and how this relates to other work-related variables such as overall job satisfaction, clinical experience, gender, age, personality, and workload., Methods: Swedish midwives (N = 207, 99 % women, M = 45.2 years), and obstetricians/gynecologists (N = 240, 83 % women, M = 44.3 years) responded to an online questionnaire reflecting aspects of maternity care work. The data was analyzed using Welch's t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis., Results: A large difference was observed in labor induction views between midwives and obstetricians/gynecologists (d = 1.39), as well as lower job satisfaction with midwives (d = -0.26). Overall job satisfaction further correlated negatively with views on labor induction (r = -0.30)., Conclusions: Labor inductions might pose challenges to midwives and could bring to light underlying tensions between obstetricians/gynecologists and midwives. Given the modest response rate of the study, we cautiously suggest that while the development of new maternity care guidelines should be grounded in evidence, they should also embrace concerns and insights from a diversity of professional perspectives., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is a trend worldwide to induce pregnant women earlier. However, few studies have focused on women's experiences. The aim was to gain a deeper understanding of women's lived experiences of induction of labour in late- and post-term pregnancy., Methods: Phenomenology with a reflective lifeworld approach was chosen as the method. Twelve women participating in a larger study in which women were randomized to either induction of labour in week 41 or to expectant management until week 42, were interviewed one to three months after giving birth., Results: The essence is described as follows: labour becomes another journey than the intended one. The women adapted to this new journey by seeing the advantages and handing themselves over to the healthcare system, but at the same time something about giving birth could be lost. The result is further described by its four constituents: planning the unplannable, being a guest at the labour ward, someone else controlling the labour , and overshadowed by how it turned out ., Conclusion: Induced labour presents a challenge to maternity personnel to support the birthing woman's normal progress, not to rush her through labour, and to involve her in the process.

Background: The purposes of successful induction of labor (IOL) are to shorten the time for IOL to delivery, increase the vaginal delivery rate, and reduce the rate of maternal and neonatal morbidity. In cases of unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), cervical ripening is advised to improve vaginal delivery rate. It may be initiated by mechanical (double balloon catheter (DBC), synthetic osmotic dilator) or pharmacologic (prostaglandins) methods, and the problem is complex due to the multitude of cervical ripening methods. We are constantly looking for the optimal protocol of cervical ripening for each woman. The present study aims to elucidate whether cervical ripening method is associated with increase rate of vaginal delivery, good women's experience and unaltered long-term quality of life after cervical ripening at term regarding maternal and obstetric characteristics., Methods and Design: The MATUCOL study is a monocentric, prospective, observational study of all consecutive women who required cervical ripening (Bishop score <6) using different methods (DBC, vaginal dinoprostone, oral misoprostol) with a live fetus at term (≥37 weeks) between January 2020 and August 2021. The outcomes will be mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, discomfort/pain assessments during cervical ripening, women's experience and satisfaction, and the impact of cervical ripening on the health-related quality of life at 3 months. If it reports a significant efficacy/safety/perinatal morbidity/women's satisfaction/quality of life at 3 months post-delivery associated with a method of cervical ripening in a specific situation (gestational and/or fetal disease) using a multivariate analysis, its use should be reconsidered in clinical practice., Discussion: This study will reveal that some cervical ripening methods will be more effectiveness, safe, with good women's experiences and QOL at 3 months compared to others regarding maternal and obstetric characteristics., Trial Registration: This study is being performed at La Roche sur Yon Hospital following registration as GNEDS on January 8, 2020., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Negative childbirth experience may affect mother wellbeing and health. However, it is rarely evaluated in studies comparing methods of induction of labor (IoL)., Aim: To compare women's experience of IoL according to the method, considering the mediating role of interventions and complications of delivery., Methods: We used data from the MEDIP prospective population-based cohort, including all women with IoL during one month in seven French perinatal networks. The experience of IoL, assessed at 2 months postpartum, was first compared between cervical ripening and oxytocin, and secondarily between different cervical ripening methods. Mediation analyses were used to measure the direct and indirect effects of cervical ripening on maternal experience, through delivery with interventions or complications., Findings: The response rate was 47.8% (n = 1453/3042). Compared with oxytocin (n = 541), cervical ripening (n = 910) was associated less often with feelings that labor went 'as expected' (adjusted risk ratio for the direct effect 0.78, 95%CI [0.70-0.88]), length of labor was 'acceptable' (0.76[0.71-0.82]), 'vaginal discomfort' was absent (0.77[0.69-0.85]) and with lower global satisfaction (0.90[0.84-0.96]). Interventions and complications mediated between 6 and 35% of the total effect of cervical ripening on maternal experience. Compared to the dinoprostone insert, maternal experience was not significantly different with the other prostaglandins. The balloon catheter was associated with less pain., Discussion: Cervical ripening was associated with a less positive experience of childbirth, whatever the method, only partly explained by interventions and complications of delivery., Conclusion: Counselling and support of women requiring cervical ripening might be enhanced to improve the experience of IoL., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: One quarter to one third of women experience induction of labour. Outpatient induction of labour may be safe and effective but women's views of this setting and of different methods of induction are sparse., Aim: To explore women's experiences of outpatient induction of labour with either prostaglandin pessary or double balloon catheter., Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with twenty-one women recruited to a feasibility trial of outpatient induction of labour. Transcripts were coded and analysed using a thematic framework approach., Findings: Two key themes were identified. 'Ownership of induction of labour' concerned how women understood and experienced the induction of labour process and tried to maintain control of a procedure managed by medical professionals. Women felt unprepared for the steps in the process and for the time it would take. The balloon method was preferred as it was considered a gentler start to the process, although some women reported it was painful on insertion. 'Importance of place' reflected women's associations of the home with comfort, ease of support and distraction, and the hospital with safety yet also with discomfort and delays., Discussion: This sample of women were keen to start induction without hormones. The randomised controlled trial design may have biased the sample towards women who wanted to experience the balloon method and outpatient setting where these were not usually offered, thus further cohort studies would be beneficial., Conclusions: Women were positive about experiencing the early stages of induction of labour at home with the balloon catheter., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: How the application of evidence to planned birth practices, induction of labour (IOL) and prelabour caesarean (CS), differs between Australian maternity units remains poorly understood. Perceptions of readiness for practice change and resources to implement change in individual units are also unclear., Aim: To identify inter-hospital and inter-professional variations in relation to current planned birth practices and readiness for change, reported by clinicians in 7 maternity units., Method: Custom-created survey of maternity staff at 7 Sydney hospitals, with questions about women's engagement with decision making, indications for planned birth, timing of birth and readiness for change. Responses from midwives and medical staff, and from each hospital, were compared., Findings: Of 245 completed surveys (27% response rate), 78% were midwives and 22% medical staff. Substantial inter-hospital variation was noted for stated planned birth indication, timing, women's involvement in decision-making practices, as well as in staff perceptions of their unit's readiness for change. Overall, 48% (range 31-64%) and 64% (range 39-89%) agreed on a need to change their unit's caesarean and induction practices respectively. The three units where greatest need for change was perceived also had least readiness for change in terms of leadership, culture, and resources. Regarding inter-disciplinary variation, medical staff were more likely than midwifery staff to believe women were appropriately informed and less likely to believe unit practice change was required., Conclusion: Planned birth practices and change readiness varied between participating hospitals and professional groups. Hospitals with greatest perceived need for change perceived least resources to implement such change.

Background: Although labor induction is a commonly used procedure in obstetrical care, there are limited data on its psycho-emotional effects on the woman. This study analysed the expectations and experiences of women in different routes of labor induction. The study's primary aim was to compare women's delivery experience if induced by orally administrated misoprostol (OMS) compared with misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI). Secondly, an evaluation of women's general satisfaction with induced labor was made, and factors associated with a negative experience., Methods: Primiparous women (n = 196) with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks of gestation, with a Bishop's score ≤ 4 planning labor induction were randomly allocated to receive either OMS (Cytotec®) or MVI (Misodel®). Data were collected by validated questionnaires, the Wijma Delivery Expectation/Experience Questionnaire (A + B). The pre-labor part of the survey (W-DEQ version A) was given to participants to complete within 1 hour before the start of induction, and the post-labor part of the questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was administered after birth and collected before the women were discharged from hospital., Results: It was found that 11.8% (17/143) reported a severe fear of childbirth (W-DEQ A score ≥ 85). Before the induction, women with extreme fear had 3.7 times increased risk of experiencing labor induction negatively (OR 3.7 [95% CI, 1.04-13.41])., Conclusion: No difference was identified between OMS and MVI when delivery experience among women induced to labor was analysed. Severe fear of childbirth before labor was a risk factor for a negative experience of labor induction., Trial Registration: Clinical trial register number NCT02918110 . Date of registration on May 31, 2016.

Background: Both induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks are common management strategies in low-risk pregnancy since there is no consensus on the optimal timing of induction in late-term pregnancy for the prevention of adverse outcomes. Our aim was to explore maternal preference for either strategy and the influence on quality of life and maternal anxiety on this preference., Methods: Obstetrical low-risk women with an uncomplicated pregnancy were eligible when they reached a gestational age of 41 weeks. They were asked to fill in questionnaires on quality of life (EQ6D) and anxiety (STAI-state). Reasons of women's preferences for either induction or expectant management were explored in a semi-structured questionnaire containing open ended questions., Results: Of 782 invited women 604 (77.2%) responded. Induction at 41 weeks was preferred by 44.7% (270/604) women, 42.1% (254/604) preferred expectant management until 42 weeks, while 12.2% (74/604) of women did not have a preference. Women preferring induction reported significantly more problems regarding quality of life and were more anxious than women preferring expectant management (p<0.001). Main reasons for preferring induction of labour were: "safe feeling" (41.2%), "pregnancy taking too long" (35.4%) and "knowing what to expect" (18.6%). For women preferring expectant management, the main reason was "wish to give birth as natural as possible" (80.3%)., Conclusion: Women's preference for induction of labour or a policy of expectant management in late-term pregnancy is influenced by anxiety, quality of life problems (induction), the presence of a wish for natural birth (expectant management), and a variety of additional reasons. This variation in preferences and motivations suggests that there is room for shared decision making in the management of late-term pregnancy., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The frequency of induction of labour (IOL) in late-term pregnancy has increased significantly, but little is known about how women with uncomplicated pregnancies experience IOL for late-term indication alone., Aim: To explore how women with uncomplicated pregnancies experienced late-term IOL., Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 women who all had labour induced on late-term indication only. Participants were recruited from two Danish hospitals who offered an outpatient induction regime. The women were interviewed 4-8 weeks after birth. Data were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: All women had hoped for a spontaneous birth. Prolonged pregnancy was understood as the body/baby "not being ready", but generally, the women were not worried at that point. Most women felt adequately informed about the reasons for IOL, but some requested more information and time to consider their options. The majority considered IOL to be both an offer and a recommendation. One-third of the participants were initially hesitant but chose/accepted IOL because of weariness from pregnancy and the impatience to deliver a healthy child. The opportunity of outpatient induction was generally appreciated as it allowed the women to continue everyday activities while waiting for labour to begin. Nineteen women reported having a good birthing experience. Two women felt that negative birthing experiences were partly related to IOL., Conclusions: Most women considered the late-term IOL to be a positive experience. Some women requested more information and time to consider alternatives. These women should be provided with supported opportunities to consider the options., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In many high-income countries, approximately half of all births are now planned regarding timing, either by elective Caesarean Section (CS) or induction of labour (IOL). To what degree this is explained by women's birth beliefs and preferences, and in turn, factors such as parity and ethnicity that may influence them, is contentious. Within a broader study on Timing of Birth by planned CS or IOL, we aimed to explore the association between demographic and pregnancy factors, with women's birth beliefs and experiences of planned birth decision-making in late pregnancy., Design: Survey study of women's birth beliefs and experiences of planned birth decision-making. Both univariate analysis and ordinal regression modelling was performed to examine the influence of; parity; cultural background; continuity of pregnancy care; CS or IOL; and whether CS was "recommended" or "requested", on women's stated birth beliefs and decision-making experience., Setting: 8 Sydney hospitals PARTICIPANTS: Women planned to have an IOL or CS between November 2018-July 2019., Measurement: The survey included four statements regarding birth beliefs and ten statements about experiences of decision-making on a 5-item Likert scale, as well as questions about demographic and pregnancy factors that might influence these beliefs., Findings: Of 340 included surveys, 56% regarded IOL and 44% CS. Women indicated strong belief both that they should be supported to make decisions about their birth and that their doctor/midwife knows what is best for them (over 90% agreement for both). Regarding decision-making, over 90% also agreed they had trust in the person providing information, understood it, and had sufficient time for both questions and decision-making. However only 58% were provided written information, 19% felt they "didn't really have a choice", and 9% felt pressure to make a decision. On both univariate and multivariate analysis, women having CS (versus IOL) expressed more positive views of their experience and involvement in decision-making, as did women experiencing a pregnancy continuity-of-care model. Women identifying as from a specific cultural or ethnic background expressed more negative experiences. On modelling, the studied factors accounted for only a small proportion of the variation in responses (3-19%)., Conclusions: Continuity of pregnancy care was associated with positive decision-making experiences and cultural background with more negative experiences. Women whose planned birth was IOL versus CS also reported more negative decision-making experiences., Implications for Practice: Attention to improving quality of information provision, including written information, to women having IOL and women of diverse background, is recommended to improve women's experiences of planned birth decision-making., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Rates of induction of labour have been increasing globally to up to one in three pregnancies in many high-income countries. Although guidelines around induction, and strength of the underlying evidence, vary considerably by indication, shared decision-making is increasingly recognised as key. The aim of this study was to identify women's mode of birth preferences and experiences of shared decision-making for induction of labour., Method: An antenatal survey of women booked for an induction at eight Sydney hospitals was conducted. A bespoke questionnaire was created assessing women's demographics, indication for induction, pregnancy model of care, initial birth preferences, and their experience of the decision-making process., Results: Of 189 survey respondents (58% nulliparous), major reported reasons for induction included prolonged pregnancy (38%), diabetes (25%), and suspected fetal growth restriction (8%). Most respondents (72%) had hoped to labour spontaneously. Major findings included 19% of women not feeling like they had a choice about induction of labour, 26% not feeling adequately informed (or uncertain if informed), 17% not being given alternatives, and 30% not receiving any written information on induction of labour. Qualitative responses highlight a desire of women to be more actively involved in decision-making., Conclusion: A substantial minority of women did not feel adequately informed or prepared, and indicated they were not given alternatives to induction. Suggested improvements include for face-to-face discussions to be supplemented with written information, and for shared decision-making interventions, such as the introduction of decision aids and training, to be implemented and evaluated., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Midwives. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the maternal characteristics associated with consent to a randomized trial of labor induction in pregnancy., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of low-risk nulliparous women randomized to induction of labor at 39 weeks or expectant management. During the trial, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested additional fields on the screening log, which already included race and ethnicity: maternal age, type of insurance, and the reason for declining consent if declined., Results: From August 2016 (start of additional data collection) to August 2017, 1,965 (28%) of the 7,112 eligible women consented to the trial. Consent was more likely for Black women (41%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.47, 95% CI 1.24-1.74), and less likely for Asian women (15%, aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.84), compared with White women (24%). Women without private insurance were more likely to consent (38%, aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.34-1.79), compared with those with private insurance (22%). Younger women were also more likely to consent. Among eligible women who declined participation and provided a reason (68%), preference to be expectantly managed (85%) was most common, a response more common in Asian women (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.31-2.33) and less common in women without private insurance (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.70). Not wanting to participate in research was more common in Asian women (aOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44-4.03). Declining consent because family or friends objected was more common in Asian women (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.27-4.95) and women without private insurance (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.10-2.59)., Conclusion: Frequency of consent and reasons for declining consent were associated with age, type of insurance, and race and ethnicity. These findings should be considered when developing recruitment strategies that promote diverse participant representation., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinialTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

Background: The rate of induction of labor in the U.S. has risen from 9.6% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2018, including 31.7% of first-time births. Recent studies that have examined inductions have been small qualitative studies or relied on either medical records or administrative data. This study examines induction from the perspective of those women who experienced it, with a particular focus on the prevalence and predictors of inductions for nonmedical indications, women's experience of pressure to induce labor and the relationship between the attempt to medically initiate labor and cesarean section., Methods: Study data are drawn from the 2119 respondents to the Listening to Mothers in California survey who were planning to have a vaginal birth in 2016. Mothers were asked if there had been an attempt to medically initiate labor, if it actually started labor, if they felt pressured to have the induction, if they had a cesarean and the reason for the induction. Reasons for induction were classified as either medically indicated or elective., Results: Almost half (47%) of our respondents indicated an attempt was made to medically induce their labor, and 71% of those attempts initiated labor. More than a third of the attempts (37%) were elective. Attempted induction overall was most strongly associated with giving birth at 41+ weeks (aOR 3.28; 95% C.I. 2.21-4.87). Elective inductions were more likely among multiparous mothers and in pregnancies at 39 or 40 weeks. The perception of being pressured to have labor induced was related to higher levels of education, maternal preference for less medical intervention in birth, having an obstetrician compared to a midwife and gestational ages of 41+ weeks. Cesarean birth was more likely in the case of overall induction (aOR 1.51; 95% C.I. 1.11-2.07) and especially following a failed attempt at labor induction (aOR 4.50; 95% C.I. 2.93-6.90)., Conclusion: Clinicians counselling mothers concerning the need for labor induction should be aware of mothers' perceptions about birth and engage in true shared decision making in order to avoid the maternal perception of being pressured into labor induction.

Background: Poor maternal childbirth experience plays a role in family planning and subsequent pregnancies. The aim of this study was to compare childbirth experiences in induced and spontaneous labor and to investigate the factors influencing the childbirth experience., Methods: This two-year cohort study included all women with term singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation aiming for vaginal delivery at Helsinki University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2018. Maternal satisfaction in the childbirth experience was measured after delivery using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score. A low childbirth experience score was defined as VAS < 5. The characteristics and delivery outcomes of the study population were collected in the hospital database and analyzed by SPSS., Results: A total of 18,396 deliveries were included in the study, of which 28.9% (n = 5322) were induced and 71.1% (n = 13 074) were of spontaneous onset. The total caesarean delivery rate was 9.3% (n = 1727). Overall, 4.5% (n = 819) of the women had a low childbirth experience VAS score. The women who underwent labor induction were less satisfied with their birth experience compared to women with spontaneous onset of labor [7.5% (n = 399) vs. 3.2% (n = 420); p < 0.001]. Poor childbirth experience was associated with primiparity [OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.6-2.4)], labor induction [OR 1.6 (95% CI 1.4-1.9)], caesarean delivery [OR 4.5 (95% CI 3.7-5.5)], operative vaginal delivery [OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.7-4.0)], post-partum hemorrhage [OR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6)], and maternal infections [OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.3-2.4)]., Conclusions: Poor childbirth experience was associated with labor induction, primiparity, operative delivery, and labor complications, such as post-partum hemorrhage and maternal infections. These results highlight the aspects of care for which patient experience may be improved by additional support and counselling.

Purpose: To describe patterns of physiological and psychological stress during induced labor and their correlation to obstetrical and neonatal outcomes., Methods: This prospective, observational study included 167 women, with low-risk, singleton pregnancies, who delivered at term, at a tertiary academic center from 2015 through 2018. Among them, 72 (43%) underwent induction and 95 (57%) had spontaneous labor onset. Physiological stress was evaluated by salivary cortisol measurements and emotional stress by questionnaires (visual analogue stress scale 0-10) during latent phase, active phase and full dilation stages of labor, as well as 2 min and 2 h postpartum. Cord blood cortisol and pH were obtained. Stress patterns were compared between parturients who did or did not undergo induction. Modes of delivery, labor and delivery complications, and early neonatal outcomes were compared. Mothers completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale., Results: Induced women had lower cortisol concentrations during the latent phase compared to spontaneous onset of labor (p = 0.003), with no differences during active (p = 0.237), full dilation (0.668), 2 min and 2 h after delivery (p = 0.666). Stress scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were similar between groups. Cord cortisol (p = 0.294), 1-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (p = 0.502) and 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (p = 0.37) were similar. All had cord pH > 7., Conclusions: Induction does not increase stress during labor. Moreover, it might have a positive effect on reducing cortisol during the latent phase. These findings might reassure women who are concerned about induction of labor.

Objective: Induction of labor (IOL) typically involves cervical priming in an inpatient setting. Outpatient cervical priming may be a safe and cost-effective alternative. However, little is known about women's preference and the impact of outpatient cervical priming on their healthcare experience. The objective was to compare women's healthcare experiences following IOL using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) and remaining an inpatient., Study Design: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken across eight Australian maternity hospitals. Between September 2015 and October 2018, 695 women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies were randomized. Of these, 215 and 233 women in the balloon-outpatient and PG-inpatient groups, respectively, received the allocated intervention. The PG group received Dinoprostone gel or controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home. Experiential and quality-of-life outcomes were measured via written questionnaire after birth. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure. Women's healthcare experience, health-state (EQ-5D-3 L) and pain scores are reported here., Results: Questionnaire data were available for 366 (81.7 %) women enrolled who received their treatment allocation. More women in the balloon-outpatient group reported they would choose IOL next pregnancy (49.2 % vs 38.4 %; p = 0.037) and desire the same method (72.4 % vs 61.1 %; p = 0.022). The balloon-outpatient group experienced higher pain scores at the start of IOL (median (IQR) 3(2-5) vs 2(1-4); p = 0.002) but lower scores at time of rupture of membranes (3(1-5) vs 4(2-6); p = 0.007). The EQ-5D-3 L health-utility index did not differ significantly between the groups (0.77 vs 0.78; p = 0.899)., Conclusions: Women report similar healthcare experiences following balloon-outpatient compared to PG-impatient IOL, but are more likely to desire the same method next pregnancy if IOL is required. If both options are available, then differences in experience should be shared with women, alongside differences in clinical outcomes as part of their decision-making process., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence suggests that maternal anxiety is associated with adverse pregnancy and delivery outcomes, such as preterm birth, vaginal bleedings and low birth weight., Aims: To examine the association of lifetime anxiety disorders and pregnancy-related anxiety and complications during pregnancy and delivery., Study Design: Prospective-longitudinal study (MARI)., Subjects: N = 306 pregnant women who were investigated repeatedly during the peripartum period., Outcome Measures: Information on lifetime anxiety disorders was assessed using a dimensional score (lifetime anxiety liability index) based on the standardized Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Women (CIDI-V). Pregnancy-related anxiety was surveyed with the Pregnancy and Childbirth Related Fears (PCF) questionnaire. Common pregnancy (e.g. vaginal bleedings) and delivery complications (e.g. labor induction) were assessed via medical records, interviews and questionnaires., Results: The global tests on the association between lifetime anxiety liability and pregnancy complications and on the association between pregnancy-related anxiety and pregnancy/delivery complications revealed significant associations. Further analyses revealed associations of lifetime anxiety liability with preterm labor (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0) as well as pregnancy-related anxiety with vaginal bleedings (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-1.8), preterm labor (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.0-1.7), gestational diabetes (OR 0.5, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9), labor induction (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-1.9) and use of labor medication (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0). After adjustment for maternal age, maternal body mass index, maternal smoking, socioeconomic status (occupation, household income) and social support (cohabitation), the associations between pregnancy-related anxiety and labor induction as well as use of labor medication remained significant., Conclusions: Pregnancy-related anxiety should be regularly assessed and, if necessary, treated during (early) pregnancy to minimize risks for complications during delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wittchen reports the following, which might be perceived as a potential conflict of interest: Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wittchen is on the advisory board of the Lundbeck Institute Skodsborg, Denmark and has also received grant support from there. All other authors declare that they have no financial relationships that might be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. All authors had complete freedom to direct the analysis and its reporting within the current manuscript without influence from the sponsors. There was no editorial direction or censorship from the sponsors., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the factors associated with dissatisfaction in women whose labour was induced, according to parity., Design: Prospective population-based cohort study., Setting: Seven French perinatal health networks including 94 maternity units PARTICIPANTS: Among 3042 consecutive women who underwent induction of labour (IoL) with a live foetus from November 17 to December 20, 2015, in participating maternity units, this study included the 1453 who answered the self-administered questionnaire about their experience of IoL at two months post-delivery., Measurements: The associations between women's dissatisfaction at two months post-delivery and the characteristics of their pregnancy, labour, and delivery were assessed with multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were stratified for nulliparous and parous women. Multivariable mixed models were used to take a random effect for the maternity unit into account., Findings: The response rate was 47.8% (n = 1453/3042). Overall, 30% of the nulliparous women were dissatisfied (n = 231/770) and 19.7% (n = 130/659) of the parous women. The specific independent determinants of dissatisfaction for nulliparous women were antenatal birth classes that failed to include discussion of IoL (OR: 2.68, 95% CI [1.37; 5.23]) and lack of involvement in the decision-making process (OR: 1.92, 95% CI [1.23; 3.02]). For the parous women, a specific determinant was a delivery that lasted more than 24 h (OR: 4.04, 95% CI [1.78; 9.14]). Determinants of maternal dissatisfaction common to both groups were unbearable vaginal discomfort (respectively, OR: 1.98, 95% CI [1.16; 3.37] and OR: 4.23, 95% CI [2.04; 8.77]), inadequate pain relief (respectively, OR: 5.55, 95% CI [3.48; 8.86] and OR: 9.17, 95% CI [5.24; 16.02]), lack of attention to requests (respectively OR: 3.81, 95% CI [2.35; 6.19] and OR: 5.01, 95% CI [2.38; 10.52]), caesarean delivery (respectively, OR: 5.55, 95% CI [3.41; 9.03] and OR: 4.61, 95% CI [2.02; 10.53]) and severe maternal complications (respectively, OR: 2.45, 95% CI [1.02; 5.88] and OR: 5.29, 95% CI [1.32; 21.21])., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: To reduce dissatisfaction in nulliparous women, IoL should be discussed during antenatal birth classes and women should be made to feel that they shared in the medical decision to perform IoL. For parous women, care providers should inform them that the duration of delivery may exceed 24 h. Continuous support for all women during IoL should pay closer attention to vaginal discomfort, pain and women's requests. Postpartum discussions with mothers should be arranged to enable conversation about the experience of unexpected events., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest, or non-financial interest in the subject matter of these article., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decreased birth satisfaction has been associated with labor induction. Yet, there is a paucity of data evaluating risk factors for decreased satisfaction associated with labor induction. We aimed to determine what factors impact low birth satisfaction in labor induction and evaluate racial disparities in birth satisfaction., Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of women with term, singleton gestations undergoing labor induction at our institution from Jan 2018 to Jun 2018. Women completed the validated Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised postpartum, which is subdivided into 3 domains: (1) quality of care provision, (2) women's personal attributes, and (3) stress experienced during labor. A total satisfaction score above the mean was classified as "satisfied", and below as "unsatisfied." Domain and item scores were compared by race., Results: Three hundred thirty of 414 (79.7%) eligible women were included. There was no significant difference in birth satisfaction by age, body mass index, Bishop score, or labor induction agent. Black women were 75% more likely to be unsatisfied than non-Black women (54.0% vs. 37.2%, OR 1.75 [95% CI 1.11-2.76], p = 0.037), nulliparas were 71% more  likely to be unsatisfied than multiparas (54.2% vs. 40.9%, OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.09-2.67], p = 0.019), and women whose labor resulted in cesarean birth were almost 3 times more likely to be unsatisfied than women with a vaginal birth (67.4% vs. 42.3%, OR 2.82 [95% CI 1.69-4.70], p < 0.001). Additionally, increased labor length quartile was associated with decreased satisfaction >(p = 0.003). By race, domain 3 scores, which reflect preparedness for labor, were lower for Black women. No differences were seen for domain 1 or 2., Conclusions: Black race, cesarean birth, and increasing labor length were identified as risk factors for low birth satisfaction among women who underwent labor induction. Further studies should explore interventions to target women at risk for low birth satisfaction.

Both cesarean surgery and induction of labor have become common procedures performed in all labor wards in an attempt to reduce adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Thus, recent evidence, led by the ARRIVE Trial, demonstrated that elective induction at 39 weeks reduced the rates of cesarean deliveries and of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. However, some concerns must be addressed, as the benefits of universal policies have to be outweighed with the current circumstances of implementation, the economic impact, the number of procedures needed to effectively reduce complications, and, above all, women's perception towards this approach. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore individualization strategies, instead of general recommendations, to offer personalized care., Competing Interests: Les auteurs n’ont déclaré aucun conflit d’intérêts en relation avec cet article.

Objectives: To explore and synthesise evidence of women's experiences of induction of labour (IoL)., Design: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed qualitative evidence. Relevant databases were searched from inception to the present day. Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative research appraisal tool., Setting and Participants: Low and high risk women who had experienced IoL in an inpatient or outpatient setting., Findings: Eleven papers (representing 10 original studies) published between 2010 and 2018 were included for thematic synthesis. Four key analytical themes were identified: ways in which decisions regarding induction were made; women's ownership of the process; women's social needs when undergoing IoL; and the importance of place in the induction process. The review indicates that IoL is a challenging experience for women, which can be understood in terms of the gap between women's needs and the reality of their experience concerning information and decision-making, support, and environment., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Providing good quality appropriately timed information and supporting women's self-efficacy to be involved in decision-making around IoL may benefit women by facilitating a sense of ownership or control of labour. Compassionate support from significant others and healthcare professionals in a comfortable, private and safe environment should be available to all women., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of the present study was to assess indications for induction and describe the characteristics and delivery outcome in medical compared to non-medical/elective inductions. During a three-month period, 1663 term inductions were registered in 24 delivery units in Norway. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation at gestational age 37+0 and beyond. Indications, pre-induction Bishop scores, mode of delivery and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes were registered, and compared between the medically indicated and elective induction groups. Ten percent of the inductions were elective, and the four most common indications were maternal request (35%), a previous negative delivery experience or difficult obstetric history (19%), maternal fatigue/tiredness (17%) and anxiety (15%). Nearly half of these inductions were performed at 39+0-40+6 weeks. There were fewer nulliparous women in the elective compared to the medically indicated induction group, 16% vs. 52% (p<0.05). The cesarean section rate in the elective induction group was 14% and 17% in the medically indicated group (14% vs. 17%, OR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3). We found that one in ten inductions in Norway is performed without a strict medical indication and 86% of these inductions resulted in vaginal delivery., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Induction of labor currently accounts for around 25% of all births in high-resource countries, yet despite much research into medical aspects, little is known about how women experience this process. This study aimed to explore in depth the induction experience of primiparous women., Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken, using a sample of 21 first-time mothers from a maternity unit in the south of England. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in women's homes between 3 and 6 weeks postnatally. Data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically., Results: Women awaiting induction on the prenatal ward appeared to occupy a liminal state between pregnancy and labor. Differences were noted between women's and midwives' notions of what constituted "being in labor" and the ward lacked the flexibility to provide individualized care for women in early labor. Unexpected delays in the induction process were common and were a source of anxiety, as was separation from partners at night. Women were not always clear about their plan of care, which added to their anxiety., Conclusions: Conceptualizing induction as a liminal state may enhance understanding of women's feelings and promote a more woman-centered approach to care. Thorough preparation for induction, including an explanation of possible delays is fundamental to enabling women to form realistic expectations. Care providers need to consider whether women undergoing induction are receiving adequate support, analgesia, and comfort aids conducive to the promotion of physiological labor and the reduction of anxiety., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: To describe and examine the EXIT (EXperiences of Induction Tool), and report on the experience of women undergoing PGE2 vaginal gel IOL, who were participants in a randomized controlled trial comparing early amniotomy with repeat-PGE2., Study Design: Following an evening dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, 245 women with live singleton term pregnancies were randomized to amniotomy or repeat-PGE2. Women's experience of IOL was a secondary outcome measure, assessed using the self-report EXIT administered by phone at 7-9days post-partum. The 10-item EXIT assessed women's experiences in multiple domains using a 5-point agreement scale. Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was undertaken to examine the scale structure. Internal consistency, face, content, construct and discriminant validity were also assessed., Results: The final 3-component solution comprised 8 of the 10 EXIT items, explained 76.1% of the variance and had a good fit to model (p<0.001). The three resulting components were representative of women's experience of the time taken to give birth, discomfort with IOL, and subsequent contractions. The items loading to each component showed good internal consistency for time taken to give birth (α=0.88), discomfort with IOL (α=0.78), and experience of subsequent contractions (α=0.87). Women in the repeat-PGE2 group reported a less favorable experience with the time taken to give birth (mean (SD): 3.5 (1.4) vs 3.9 (1.2); p=0.04) and more discomfort with IOL (2.9 (1.1) vs 2.5 (1.0); p=0.04) compared to women in the amniotomy group. At the individual item level, women in the amniotomy group responded more positive about the time taken to have their baby (median (IQR): 4 (3-5) vs 3 (2-5); p<0.01); and less negative to the question about the number of vaginal examinations (2 (1-3) vs 2 (1-4); p=0.05)., Conclusions: The EXIT shows promise as an instrument for assessing women's experience of IOL. Women undergoing PGE2 vaginal gel IOL reports a more positive experience with an early amniotomy rather than with repeat-PGE2., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

A prospective patient questionnaire was conducted to assess attitudes and opinions towards outpatient cervical ripening in women attending an Australian tertiary hospital's labour and birth suite for a booked induction of labour. Questionnaires were distributed over a three-month period and information collected included demographic data, pregnancy and obstetric history, attitudes towards cervical ripening and willingness to undergo cervical ripening in the outpatient setting. Responses to 57 completed questionnaires were analysed. Forty-one patients (72%) underwent cervical ripening with Foley Catheter Balloon (FCB) only, eight (14%) with FCB and vaginal prostaglandins (VP), two (3.5%) with VP only and six patients (10.5%) did not require cervical ripening. One-third (33%) of patients stated, both before the commencement of cervical ripening and after delivery, that they would feel happy to undergo outpatient cervical ripening. Patient acceptance of outpatient cervical ripening has potential economic and psychosocial benefits for the healthcare system and patient respectively.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that has experienced dramatic increases in the use of maternity interventions resulting in poor birth outcomes. It is speculated that the increased rates of maternal mortality and other outcomes are attributed to the current maternity model of care focused on the overuse of interventions, such as induction of labor, in otherwise healthy pregnant women. The overuse of induction of labor to artificially speed up the birth process has been linked to an increase in preterm and cesarean births. The cost of these interventions and poor outcomes has been substantial. The purpose of this article is to present concepts that demonstrate the challenges and value of informed, shared decision making, informed consent, and women's use of evidence within the context of maternity care. To highlight these important concepts, this article presents original findings from a secondary analysis of data on induction of labor. Findings from this analysis further highlight the importance of including women as part of informed, shared decision making in models of maternity care.

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare perinatal outcomes between elective induction of labour (eIOL) and expectant management in obese women., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Deliveries in California in 2007., Population: Term, singleton, vertex, nonanomalous deliveries among obese women (n = 74 725)., Methods: Women who underwent eIOL at 37 weeks were compared with women who were expectantly managed at that gestational age. Similar comparisons were made at 38, 39, and 40 weeks. Results were stratified by parity. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression were used for statistical comparison., Main Outcome Measures: Method of delivery, severe perineal lacerations, postpartum haemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus injury, respiratory distress syndrome., Results: The odds of caesarean delivery were lower among nulliparous women with eIOL at 37 weeks [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.90] and 39 weeks (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95) compared to expectant management. Among multiparous women with a prior vaginal delivery, eIOL at 37 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64), 38 (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82), and 39 weeks (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) was associated with lower odds of caesarean. Additionally, eIOL at 38, 39, and 40 weeks was associated with lower odds of macrosomia. There were no differences in the odds of operative vaginal delivery, lacerations, brachial plexus injury or respiratory distress syndrome., Conclusions: In obese women, term eIOL may decrease the risk of caesarean delivery, particularly in multiparas, without increasing the risks of other adverse outcomes when compared with expectant management., (© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Expectant mothers and their spouses spend months preparing to eagerly welcome their much-anticipated baby into their family. Stillbirth or a diagnosis of life-limiting fetal anomalies comes as a devastating turn of events for affected women and their families. From the time of diagnosis to intervention (i.e., induction of labor for stillbirth or late termination of pregnancy for fetal anomalies), affected women often feel vulnerable and abandoned, with many experiencing long-term psychological and emotional effects. Knowledge of obstetric management, ethical and medical challenges, and psychological aspects have evolved in recent years. Familiarity with this emerging knowledge better prepares the obstetric anesthesiologist to deliver effective and empathic care. Encounters with women experiencing stillbirth and life-limiting fetal anomalies prompted this review of current evidence regarding parturient' perspectives on their care as they set out on the road to recovery.

Objective: To determine whether patient-perceived pressure from clinicians for labor induction or cesarean delivery is significantly associated with having these procedures., Data Sources/study Setting: Listening to Mothers III, a nationally representative survey of women 18-45 years who delivered a singleton infant in a U.S. hospital July 2011-June 2012 (N = 2,400)., Study Design: Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with perceived pressure and estimation of odds of induction and cesarean given perceived pressure., Principal Findings: Overall, 14.8 percent of respondents perceived pressure from a clinician for labor induction and 13.3 percent for cesarean delivery. Women who perceived pressure for labor induction had higher odds of induction overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.51; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-5.0) and without medical reason (aOR: 2.13; 95 percent CI: 1.3-3.4) compared with women who did not perceive pressure. Those perceiving pressure for cesarean delivery had higher odds of cesarean overall (aOR: 5.17; 95 percent CI: 3.2-8.4), without medical reason (aOR: 6.13; 95 percent CI: 3.4-11.1), and unplanned cesarean (aOR: 6.70; 95 percent CI: 4.0-11.3)., Conclusions: Patient-perceived pressure from clinicians significantly predicts labor induction and cesarean delivery. Efforts to reduce provider-patient miscommunication and minimize potentially unnecessary procedures may be warranted., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: One in four Australian births are induced. If cervical ripening using a prostaglandin is required, a pre-labour overnight hospitalisation and separation from family and support companions is necessary. Recent evidence shows that balloon catheter cervical ripening is just as effective as prostaglandins, but does not cause uterine stimulation. For women with low risk pregnancies, this offers the possibility of undergoing the overnight ripening process in their own home. We conducted a pilot randomised trial to assess the outcomes, clinical pathways and acceptability to both women and clinicians of outpatient balloon catheter ripening compared with usual inpatient care., Methods: Forty-eight women with low risk term pregnancies were randomised (2:1) to either outpatient (n = 33) or inpatient double-balloon catheter (n = 15) cervical ripening. Although not powered for statistically significant differences, the study explored potential direction of effect for key clinical outcomes such as oxytocin use, caesarean section and morbidities. Feedback on acceptability was sought from women at catheter insertion and 4 weeks after the birth, and from midwives and doctors, at the end of the study., Results: Clinical and perinatal outcomes were similar. Most women required oxytocin (77 %). The outpatient group were 24 % less likely to require oxytocin (risk difference -23.6 %, 95 % CI -43.8 to -3.5). There were no failed inductions, infections or uterine hyperstimulation attributable to the catheter in either group. Most women in both groups reported discomfort with insertion and wearing the catheter, but were equally satisfied with their care and felt the baby was safe (91 % both groups). Outpatient women reported feeling less isolated or emotionally alone. Most midwives and doctors (n = 90) agreed that they are more comfortable in sending home a woman with a catheter than prostaglandins and 90 % supported offering outpatient ripening to eligible women., Conclusions: Outpatient balloon catheter ripening should be further investigated as an option for women in an adequately powered randomised trial., Trial Registration: Prospectively registered, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001184864 .

Background: In response to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, clinicians and researchers are critically evaluating methods to engage patients in implementing evidence-based care to improve health outcomes. However, most models on implementation only target clinicians or health systems as the adopters of evidence. Patients are largely ignored in these models. A new implementation model that captures the complex but important role of patients in the uptake of evidence may be a critical missing link., Discussion: Through a process of theory evaluation and development, we explore patient-centered concepts (patient activation and shared decision making) within an implementation model by mapping qualitative data from an elective induction of labor study to assess the model's ability to capture these key concepts. The process demonstrated that a new, patient-centered model for implementation is needed. In response, the Evidence Informed Decision Making through Engagement Model is presented. We conclude that, by fully integrating women into an implementation model, outcomes that are important to both the clinician and patient will improve., Conclusions: In the interest of providing evidence-based care to women during pregnancy and childbirth, it is essential that care is patient centered. The inclusion of concepts discussed in this article has the potential to extend beyond maternity care and influence other clinical areas. Utilizing the newly developed Evidence Informed Decision Making through Engagement Model provides a framework for utilizing evidence and translating it into practice while acknowledging the important role that women have in the process., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

A physician and mother on giving birth in a culture that increasingly pushes women toward cesarean sections., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Objective: To compare early induction and expectant management regarding delivery outcomes and the experience of delivery in nulliparous women with prolonged latent phases., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Setting: One delivery unit in a Swedish hospital., Population: Nulliparous women at term experiencing continuous contractions impeding rest (women's report) and exceeding 18 h, a cervical dilation of less than 4 cm, intact membranes and with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation., Methods: The women were randomly allocated to either early induction (n = 65) or expectant management (n = 64). All participants received medication for therapeutic rest. The early induction group was induced five hours after medication, and the expectant group awaited spontaneous onset of labor. The Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was filled in after delivery., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included birth experience, duration of labor, postpartum hemorrhage, and neonatal outcomes., Results: The cesarean section rate was 15 of 65 (23.1%) in the early induction group and 24 of 64 (37.5%) in the expectant group (p = 0.076, OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.93-4.31). No significant differences were shown regarding delivery, neonatal outcomes or birth experience., Conclusions: No significant differences were shown between the two groups in the rate of cesarean sections or the experience of delivery. According to the actual results, the power to detect a difference was only 45%. The cesarean section rate was high in both groups, regardless of intervention., (© 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: In many countries a high proportion of births begin as induced labours. Induction can be lengthy if cervical priming is required prior to induction. This usually occurs as an inpatient, however, an alternative is to allow women to go home after satisfactory fetal monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of women for cervical priming for induction of labour in an outpatient or inpatient setting., Method: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted alongside a randomised trial of inpatient and outpatient cervical priming (the OPRA trial) in two maternity hospitals in South Australia. 362 participants were included, and women's preferences for cervical priming for induction of labour were assessed., Results: Women were willing to accept an extra 1.4 trips to hospital (2.4 trips total) and a total travel time of 73.3 minutes to be able to return to their own home while waiting for the priming to work. For enhanced inpatient services, women were willing to accept a total travel time of 54.7 minutes to have a private room with private bathroom while waiting for the priming to work. The overall benefit score for outpatient priming was 3.63, 3.59 for enhanced inpatient care and 2.89 for basic inpatient care, suggesting slightly greater preferences for outpatient priming. Preferences for outpatient priming increased when women could return to their own home (compared to other offsite accommodation), and decreased with more trips to hospital and longer travel time., Conclusions: Our results suggest that outpatient priming was slightly more preferred than either enhanced inpatient priming or basic care; these results should be confirmed in different clinical settings. There may be merit in providing women information about both options in the future, as preferences varied according to the characteristics of the services on offer and the sociodemographic background of the woman.

Background: Patient preferences and clinician practices are possible causative factors to explain the increase in induction of labor, but scientific studies that demonstrate this link are limited. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that influence inductions from the perspective of women., Methods: A qualitative investigation using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Women were interviewed preinduction and postinduction. Analysis of the interviews was conducted using constant comparison to identify codes, categories, and themes. Through this process the complex intersection between women, their clinician, and the application of evidence-based care in clinical practice was explored., Results: Five major themes from the preinduction interview were identified; safety of baby, women's trust in their clinician, relief of discomfort and/or anxiety, diminish potential or actual risk, and lack of informed decision making. Five major themes were identified from the postinduction interview; lack of informed decision making, induction as part of a checklist, women's trust in their clinician, happy with induction, and opportunities to improve the experience., Conclusions: Lack of informed decision making was cited as a barrier to optimal care. This study has important implications for patient-centered research and clinical care, requiring the inclusion of women and the salient concepts of care that they identify., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Limited evidence is available around induction of labour (IOL) and obstetric outcomes for pregnant women with severe mental illness (SMI)., Aims: Our study examined obstetric and neonatal outcomes for women attending a specialist childbirth and mental illness (CAMI) antenatal clinic in Perth, Western Australia (WA), who experienced or did not experience IOL., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted between December 2007 and May 2012 (n = 222), using patient records and computerised perinatal data collected by the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Clinical Care Unit. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons using Mann-Whitney tests and X(2) tests were conducted using SPSS., Results: The overall rate of IOL in this study group was 40%, which was significantly higher than the WA Mother Baby Statistics by 11.6% (95% CI 4.9-18.3%, P < 0.002). Of those induced, 30% (27 of 185) were induced for psychiatric reasons. Women with schizophrenia were more likely to have IOL for an obstetric/fetal reason than a psychiatric reason (45% vs. 15%, P = 0.051). Women who experienced an IOL were less likely to have a spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) and more likely to have an assisted vaginal birth or emergency caesarean section (P = 0.040). Irrespective of labour onset, special care nursery admission (SCN) rates were similar and high for both groups (36% vs. 32%, P = 0.599)., Conclusion: Obstetric management for women with SMI is complex, and psychiatric factors as well as medical factors must be considered to ensure the best outcomes for mother and infant., (© 2013 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Induction of labour is a common obstetric intervention in the UK, occurring in approximately 22 per cent of labours (Birthchoice UK 2014). Much evidence exists regarding methods, efficacy, safety and outcomes, but very little is known about women's experience of induction of labour (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2008). Qualitative interviews were carried out with low risk primigravid women being induced post-maturity. Women expressed fear about the induction process, described their midwife as being their primary source of information and reported that they had sufficient information prior to admission.

Objective: To investigate women's experience of induction of labor., Design: Mixed methods study., Setting: English maternity units., Sample: Women who gave birth in a two-week period in late 2009, excluding women aged less than 16 years and women whose baby had died., Methods: This study involved secondary analysis of data from questionnaires relating to care in childbirth. Women's experience of induction of labor was compared with that of women who had spontaneous labor by analysis of responses to structured survey questions. Responses to open questions relating to induction were analysed qualitatively., Main Outcome Measures: Satisfaction with care, mode of delivery, experience of induction of labor., Results: The response rate to the survey was 55.1% representing 5333 women, 20% of whom were induced. Nulliparous women, those with long-term health problems, or specific pregnancy-related problems were significantly more likely to be induced. Women who were induced were generally less satisfied with aspects of their care and significantly less likely to have a normal delivery. In the qualitative analysis the main themes that emerged concerned delay, staff shortages, neglect, pain and anxiety in relation to getting the induction started and once it was underway; and in relation to failed induction, the main themes were plans not being followed, wasted effort and pain, and feeling let down and disappointed., Conclusions: Women having an induction were generally less satisfied with their care, suggesting the need for a focused service for these women to address their additional needs., (© 2013 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

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.)