Open AccessComparison of primiparous womenʼs 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 )
Author(s) -
Place Katariina,
Kruit Heidi,
Rahkonen Leena
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
acta obstetricia et gynecologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.401
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1600-0412
pISSN - 0001-6349
DOI - 10.1111/aogs.14433
Subject(s) - misoprostol , medicine , childbirth , obstetrics , visual analogue scale , labor induction , pregnancy , balloon catheter , prospective cohort study , balloon , catheter , ripening , bishop score , abortion , cervix , anesthesia , surgery , oxytocin , chemistry , genetics , food science , biology , cancer
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.