Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth
Do you wish to request the book?
Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth
2022
Overview
Objective First birth and labor induction are risk factors for negative childbirth experiences. As labor inductions are increasing, research into this high-risk group's childbirth experiences is important. We aimed to investigate whether nulliparity or factors related to labor induction, labor, and delivery explain the association. Methods This was a prospective study of 711 women undergoing labor induction at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The participants answered the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) after delivery (response rate 69.4%). The patient characteristics and delivery outcomes were collected from patient records. We analyzed the results for nulliparous and parous women. Results The mean CEQ scores were 2.9 (SD 0.5) for nulliparous women (n = 408) and 3.2 (SD 0.5) for parous women (n = 303), on a scale of 1-4; higher scores represent more positive experiences. However, 7.3% of the women had negative childbirth experiences (8.8% nulliparous; 5.3% parous, p = 0.08). Negative experiences were associated with a cesarean section (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.8-9.3, p < 0.001) and a hemorrhage [greater than or equal to] 1500 ml in vaginal delivery (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.03). In the separate CEQ domains analyses, nulliparity was associated with negative experiences in the \"Own Capacity\" domain (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.4, p = 0.03). Cervical ripening, oxytocin use, and daytime delivery were associated with negative experiences in at least one domain, whereas epidural or spinal analgesia was regarded positively in two domains and negatively in one. Conclusions Nulliparous women undergoing labor induction risk negative childbirth experiences mainly due to labor and delivery-related factors, similar to parous women. Their perceptions of their capacity and preparedness for labor and delivery should be enhanced antenatally. An effective labor induction protocol promoting as high a rate of vaginal delivery as possible and preparedness to promptly respond to postpartum hemorrhage are key for avoiding negative childbirth experiences.
Publisher
Public Library of Science,Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subject
/ Birth
/ Births
/ Domains
/ Labor
/ Medicine and Health Sciences
/ Oxytocin
/ Patients
/ Research and Analysis Methods
/ Ripening
/ Vagina
