Long-term memories and experiences of childbirth in a Nordic context—a secondary analysis - International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being - Vol. 4, 2 - ISBN: 1748-2623, 1748-2631 - p.115-128

Objectives We compared intrapartum interventions and outcomes for mothers, neonates and children up to 16 years, for induction of labour (IOL) versus spontaneous labour onset in uncomplicated term pregnancies with live births. Design We used population linked data from New South Wales, Australia (2001–2016) for healthy women giving birth at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed for intrapartum interventions, postnatal maternal and neonatal outcomes, and long-term child outcomes adjusted for maternal age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, parity and gestational age. Results Of 474 652 included births, 69 397 (15%) had an IOL for non-medical reasons. Primiparous women with IOL versus spontaneous onset differed significantly for: spontaneous vaginal birth (42.7% vs 62.3%), instrumental birth (28.0% vs 23.9%%), intrapartum caesarean section (29.3% vs 13.8%), epidural (71.0% vs 41.3%), episiotomy (41.2% vs 30.5%) and postpartum haemorrhage (2.4% vs 1.5%). There was a similar trend in outcomes for multiparous women, except for caesarean section which was lower (5.3% vs 6.2%). For both groups, third and fourth degree perineal tears were lower overall in the IOL group: primiparous women (4.2% vs 4.9%), multiparous women (0.7% vs 1.2%), though overall vaginal repair was higher (89.3% vs 84.3%). Following induction, incidences of neonatal birth trauma, resuscitation and respiratory disorders were higher, as were admissions to hospital for infections (ear, nose, throat, respiratory and sepsis) up to 16 years. There was no difference in hospitalisation for asthma or eczema, or for neonatal death (0.06% vs 0.08%), or in total deaths up to 16 years. Conclusion IOL for non-medical reasons was associated with higher birth interventions, particularly in primiparous women, and more adverse maternal, neonatal and child outcomes for most variables assessed. The size of effect varied by parity and gestational age, making these important considerations when informing women about the risks and benefits of IOL.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/6/e047040.full.pdf

Intrapartum interventions and outcomes for women and children following induction of labour at term in uncomplicated pregnancies: a 16-year population-based linked data study

OBSTETRIC VIOLENCE A qualitative interview study

Background The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery-led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour. Objectives To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi-randomised trials and cross-over studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author. Main results We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high- or upper-middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low-certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: - spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random-effects method); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); - caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); - neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); - admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); - caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); - admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low-certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); - admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes. Authors' conclusions Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low-certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs.

Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

Dissatisfaction of women with induction of labour according to parity: Results of a population-based cohort study.

Women's experiences of induction of labour: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

Women's experiences of outpatient induction of labour with double balloon catheter or prostaglandin pessary: A qualitative study.

The aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of induction of labour comparing use of two methods in the outpatient setting. An open-label feasibility RCT was conducted in two UK maternity units from October 2017 to March 2019. Women aged ≥ 16 years, undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at term, with intact membranes and deemed suitable for outpatient IOL according to local guidelines were considered eligible. They were randomised to cervical ripening balloon catheter (CRB) or vaginal dinoprostone (Propess). The participants completed a questionnaire and a sub-group underwent detailed interview. Service use and cost data were collected via the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS). Women who declined to participate were requested to complete a decliners’ questionnaire. During the study period, 274 eligible women were identified. Two hundred thirty (83.9%) were approached for participation of whom 84/230 (36.5%) agreed and 146 did not. Of these, 38 were randomised to Propess (n = 20) and CRB (n = 18). Decliner data were collected for 93 women. The reasons for declining were declining IOL (n = 22), preference for inpatient IOL (n = 22) and preference for a specific method, Propess (n = 19). The intended sample size of 120 was not reached due to restrictive criteria for suitability for outpatient IOL, participant preference for Propess and shortage of research staff. The intervention as randomised was received by 29/38 (76%) women. Spontaneous vaginal delivery was observed in 9/20 (45%) women in the dinoprostone group and 11/18 (61%) women in the CRB group. Severe maternal adverse events were recorded in one woman in each group. All babies were born with good condition and all except one (37/38, 97.4%) remained with the mother after delivery. No deaths were recorded. − 21% of women in the dinoprostone group were re-admitted prior to diagnosis of active labour compared to 12% in the CRB group. A third of the approached eligible women agreed for randomisation. An RCT is not feasible in the current service context. Modifications to the eligibility criteria for outpatient IOL, better information provision and round the clock availability of research staff would be needed to reach sufficient numbers. 
NCT03199820

. Registered on June 27, 2017

/pdf/prostaglandin-insert-dinoprostone-versus-trans-cervical-3d5o0dhr85.pdf

Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F)

Georgina Cupples

Papers

Women's experiences of induction of labour: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

Women's experiences of outpatient induction of labour with double balloon catheter or prostaglandin pessary: A qualitative study.

Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F)

Re: BJOG Debate. Induction of labour should be offered to all women at term. FOR: Induction of labour should be offered at term