Comparison of primiparous women's childbirth experience in labor induction with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol - a prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS)

Katariina Place, Heidi Kruit, Leena Rahkonen, Katariina Place, Heidi Kruit, Leena Rahkonen

Abstract

Introduction: Primiparity and labor induction, especially when cervical ripening is required, are risk factors for a negative childbirth experience. Our aim was to compare childbirth experience in primiparous women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol using the validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). We also wanted to compare assessment of a negative childbirth experience by visual analogue scale (VAS) and CEQ.

Material and methods: This is a prospective study of 362 primiparous women undergoing cervical ripening and labor induction by balloon catheter (67.4%) or oral misoprostol (32.6%) at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020. After delivery, the women assessed their childbirth experience using the CEQ, and patient records provided the patient characteristics, delivery outcomes and VAS ratings. We analyzed the results using IBM SPSS Statistics.

Results: Overall, the women experienced their labor and delivery rather positively, with a mean CEQ score of 2.9 (SD 0.6) (scale 1-4), and no differences were detectable when comparing women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or misoprostol. However, women with balloon catheter were more often satisfied with the method chosen for them and would choose the same method in a future pregnancy. Compared with CEQ, VAS seems mainly to reflect the women's perception of their own capacity to give birth and the safety of the hospital setting, not the level of professional support or participation in decision-making. According to our results, CEQ and VAS are comparable, but the usability of the CEQ is limited by its inability to distinguish the most negative and the most positive experiences, and the VAS is limited by its simplicity.

Conclusions: Women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol experienced their childbirth rather positively, results being similar in both groups. However, women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter were more content with their labor induction. The CEQ and VAS can both be used to assess the childbirth experience of primiparous women undergoing labor induction, but both methods have limitations.

Keywords: balloon catheter; childbirth experience; childbirth experience questionnaire; induction of labor; labor induction; misoprostol; visual analogue scale.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study population.

References

    1. Heino A, Kiuru S, Gissler M. Perinatal Statistics – Parturients, Deliveries and Newborns 2020 (Preliminary Data). Finnish Institute for health and welfare; 2021.
    1. Adler K, Rahkonen L, Kruit H. Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; a two‐year cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:415.
    1. Soriano‐Vidal FJ, Oliver‐Roig A, Cabrero‐García J, Congost‐Maestre N, Dencker A, Richart‐Martínez M. The Spanish version of the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ‐E): reliability and validity assessment. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:372.
    1. Joensuu J, Saarijärvi H, Rouhe H, et al. Maternal childbirth experience and time of delivery: a retrospective 7‐year cohort study of 105 847 parturients in Finland. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e046433.
    1. Falk M, Nelson M, Blomberg M. The impact of obstetric interventions and complications on women's satisfaction with childbirth a population based cohort study including 16,000 women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:494.
    1. Blanc‐Petitjean P, Dupont C, Carbonne B, et al. Methods of induction of labor and women's experience: a population‐based cohort study with mediation analyses. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:621.
    1. Shorey S, Yang YY, Ang E. The impact of negative childbirth experience on future reproductive decisions: a quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:1236‐1244.
    1. ten Eikelder MLG, 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;387:1619‐1628.
    1. ten Eikelder MLG, van de Meent MM, Mast K, et al. Women's experiences with and preference for induction of labor with Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term. Am Jf Perinatol. 2017;34:138‐146.
    1. Toivonen E, Uotila J, Huhtala H, Palomäki O. CEQ‐FI – a validated tool for measuring the childbirth experience. Lääkärilehti. 2021;11(76):714‐418.
    1. Alkmark M, Carlsson Y, Wendel SB, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: an observational study within the SWEdish Postterm induction study (SWEPIS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1463‐1477.
    1. Nilvér H, Wessberg A, Dencker A, et al. Women's childbirth experiences in the Swedish post‐term induction study (SWEPIS): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e042340.
    1. Dencker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M. Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:81.
    1. Walker KF, Wilson P, Bugg GJ, Dencker A, Thornton JG. Childbirth experience questionnaire: validating its use in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:86.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34‐42.
    1. Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:122.e1‐122.e8.
    1. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Ware Branch D, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1281‐1287.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal‐Fetal Medicine , Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:179‐193.
    1. Mundle S, Bracken H, Khedikar V, et al. Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:669‐680.
    1. Beckmann M, Acreman M, Schmidt E, Merollini KMD, Miller Y. Women's experience of induction of labor using PGE2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;249:1‐6.
    1. Turkmen S, Tjernström M, Dahmoun M, Bolin M. Post‐partum duration of satisfaction with childbirth. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44:2166‐2173.
    1. Dencker A, Bergqvist L, Berg M, Greenbrook JTV, Nilsson C, Lundgren I. Measuring women's experiences of decision‐making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised childbirth experience questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:199.
    1. Waldenström U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Rådestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth. 2004;31:17‐27.
    1. Ryding EL, Wijma K, Wijma B. Experiences of emergency cesarean section: a phenomenological study of 53 women. Birth. 1998;25:246‐251.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren