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

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.

Keywords

induction of labor - oral misoprostol - Foley catheter - patient experience - patient preference

• References

• 1 Perinataal Register Nederland. Perinatale zorg in Nederland 2013. Available at http://www.perinatreg.nl/uploads/150/153/PRN_jaarboek_2013_09122014.pdf . Accessed Feb 15, 2016
• 2 The Health and Social Car Information Centre. NHS Maternity Statistics, England 2013–2014. Available at http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16725/nhs-mate-eng-2013-14-summ-repo-rep.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2015
• 3 EURO-PERISTAT Project, with SCPE EUROCAT EURONEOSTAT. The European Perinatal Health Report 2010. Available at http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010 . Accessed June 24, 2015
• 4 NSW Public Health Bulletin: Mothers and Babies, NSW Department of Health. NSW Midwives Data Collection 2012. Available at http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/hsnsw/Publications/mothers-and-babies-2012.pdf . Accessed October 10, 2015
• 5 Hildingsson I, Karlström A, Nystedt A. Women's experiences of induction of labour—findings from a Swedish regional study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51 (2) 151-157
• 6 Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3: CD001233 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2.
• 7 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T , et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015; 350: h217 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h217.
• 8 Ten Eikelder ML, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M , et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10028) 1619-1628
• 9 Ten Eikelder ML, Neervoort F, Oude Rengerink K , et al. Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 67 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-67.
• 10 Wijma K, Wijma B, Zar M. Psychometric aspects of the W-DEQ; a new questionnaire for the measurement of fear of childbirth. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 19 (2) 84-97
• 11 Garthus-Niegel S, Størksen HT, Torgersen L, Von Soest T, Eberhard-Gran M. The Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire: a factor analytic study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 32 (3) 160-163
• 12 Gärtner FR, Freeman LM, Rijnders ME , et al. A comprehensive representation of the birth-experience: identification and prioritization of birth-specific domains based on a mixed-method design. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 147 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-147.
• 13 Simkin P. The experience of maternity in a woman's life. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1996; 25 (3) 247-252
• 14 Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women's perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour—a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 123 (1) 56-61
• 15 Sujata B, Iqbal V, Das A et al. Evaluation of non-pharmacological method-transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol and Prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Biomedical Research 2012; 2 (23) 247-252
• 16 Nuutila M, Halmesmäki E, Hiilesmaa V, Ylikorkala O. Women's anticipations of and experiences with induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78 (8) 704-709
• 17 Jonsson M, Hellgren C, Wiberg-Itzel E, Akerud H. Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (9) 997-1004
• 18 Ugwu EO, Onah HE, Obi SN , et al. Effect of the Foley catheter and synchronous low dose misoprostol administration on cervical ripening: a randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 33 (6) 572-577