Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2018 Mar;24(1):58-70. 10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.1.58.

Pregnant Women's Labor Progress, Childbirth Outcome, and Childbirth Satisfaction according to the Presence or Absence of Labor Induction

• Jeong YA
• Chung CW

• KMID: 2414020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.1.58

Abstract

PURPOSE
To provide accurate information on induced labor and find strategies to enhance women's childbirth satisfaction.
METHODS
Participants were pregnant women expected to have normal vaginal delivery. A total of 113 women with induced labor and 61 women with spontaneous labor were surveyed. Data were collected using a questionnaire and electronic medical records.
RESULTS
The following variables related to labor progress showed significant differences between the induced labor group and the spontaneous labor group: length of the first stage of labor in primigravidas, use of analgesic, incidence of uterine hyperstimulation, incidence of fetal distress, and medical treatment for the expectant mother. Delivery type and the incidence of postpartum complications showed significant difference between the two groups. Induced labor women's childbirth satisfaction was mainly affected by the process of labor whereas spontaneous labor women's childbirth satisfaction was affected by the outcome of childbirth.
CONCLUSION
Medical staff should have accurate information on the risk of induced labor and the benefits of a natural delivery. Moreover, medical staff should provide necessary information and environment for women to participate in the decision-making process.

Keyword

Induced labor; Spontaneous labor; Pregnant woman

MeSH Terms

Electronic Health Records
Female
Fetal Distress
Humans
Incidence
Labor, Induced
Medical Staff
Mothers
Parturition*
Postpartum Period
Pregnancy
Pregnant Women

Reference

References

1. Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King VJ. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009; 116(5):626–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.02065.x.

2. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Number of induced, normal, or cesarean deliveries [Internet]. Seoul: Author;2006. [cited 2006 October 20]. Available from:. http://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020038000000&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=12004&pageIndex=1.

3. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: Present concerns and future strategies. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002; 100(1):164–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029–7844(02)02047–1.

4. Eom JM. Effect of labor induction on cesarean delivery rates in term pregnancies [master's thesis]. Ulsan: University of Ulsan;2011. p. 1–25.

5. Choi YS, Park HK, Choi SR, Yang SC, Lee YW. Clinical characteristics of induction of labor in nulliparas. Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007; 50(12):1650–1656.

6. Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (Prostaglandin E2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2003. 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003101.

7. Lee BI. A clinical study on the risk factors responsible for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in vaginal delivery. Inje Medical Journal. 1991; 12(1):41–42.

8. Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: An analysis of economic and health consequences. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002; 187(4):858–863. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.[phone].

9. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low risk women at term. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2000; 95(6):917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029–7844(00)00794–8.

10. Lee HS, Cwon GH, Kim JD. Clinical study on the oxytocin effect on neonate. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 1986; 29(7):942–949.

11. Choi H, Kim BR, Lee HK. The management of post-term pregnancy: a comparative clinical study between the induced labor and the spontaneous labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 1984; 27(15):2108–2114.

12. Simpson KR, Atterbury J. Trends and issues in labor induction in the United States: Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 2003; 32(6):767–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884217503258528.

13. Smith GCS, Pell JP, Dobbie RP. Cesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. The Lancet. 2003; 362(9398):1779–1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140–6736(03)14896–9.

14. McCrea BH, Wright ME. Satisfaction in childbirth and perception of personal control in pain relief during labor. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2000; 29(4):877–884. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365–2648.1999.00961.x.

15. Hauck Y, Fenwick J, Downie J, Butt J. The influence of childbirth expectations on Western Australian women's perceptions of their birth experience. Midwifery. 2007; 23(3):235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.02.002.

16. Nichols FH, Humenick SS. Childbirth education: Practice, research and theory. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders;2000.

17. Yeh P, Emary K, Impey L. The relationship between umbilical cord arterial pH and serious adverse neonatal outcome: Analysis of 51519 consecutive validated samples. An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gyanecology. 2012; 119(7):824–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2012.03335.x.

18. Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The Labour Agentry Scale: Psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Research in Nursing and Health. 1987; 10(5):301–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770100503.

19. Fraser M, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin J. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1997; 176(2):419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002–9378(97)70509-X.

20. Kim DY, Chung SM, Song CH, Chung HB, Shin JH, Hong SY, et al. Original article: A clinical study on the elective induction of labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 1998; 41(12):2990–2996.

21. Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002; 186(2):240–244. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.[phone].

22. van Gemund N, Hardeman A, Scherjon SA, Kanhai HHH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2003; 56(3):133–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000073771.

23. Porreco RP, Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Meyers JA. The changing specter of uterine rupture. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009; 200(3):): 269.e1–269.e4.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.874.

24. Briggs GG, Wan SR. Drug therapy during labor and delivery, part 2. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2006; 63(12):1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp050265.p2.

25. Nicholson JM, Stenson MH, Kellar LC, Caughey AB, Macones GA. Active management of risk in nulliparous pregnancy at term: Association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009; 200(3):): 254.e1–254.e13.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.052.

26. Ashalatha S, Rhona B, Pat R, Allan T. Women's perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour-A questionnaire-based study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2005; 123(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004.

27. Chun N. The effects of childbirth education on primiparas' childbirth experience and postpartum maternal adaptation [master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University;2001. p. 1–29.

28. Henderson J, Redshaw M. Women's experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2013; 92(10):1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12211.

29. Jun HR, Park JH, Park SW, Huh CK, Hwang SG. Decision-making process and satisfaction of pregnant women for delivery method. Korean Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998; 31(4):751–769.