Danish medical journal · 2023
Women's experiences of induction of labour with misoprostol tablets compared with vaginal insert.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hansen Karen H, Eriksson Axelina, Jeppesen Sarah, Jeppegaard Maria, Krebs Lone
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare nulliparous women's experiences with induction of labour using two different regimens of misoprostol.
METHODS: We adapted a validated questionnaire regarding experience with induced labour. In two different hospitals, 123 women undergoing medical induction of labour completed a questionnaire after delivery. An independent-samples T-test was used for comparison of parametric continuous variables and Pearson's χ2 test was used for categorical data. The two groups differed regarding BMI and pregnancy complications. No adjusted estimates were calculated.
RESULTS: Women induced with oral misoprostol experienced more painful induction of labour (p = 0.019) and described feeling that their length of stay at hospital was excessive (p = 0.028). Overall, the experience of giving birth after induction of labour was reported as "good" among 87.8% of women induced with oral misoprostol compared with 72.7% of the women induced with a slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert (p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: In two departments characterized by several differences, including whether vaginal or oral misoprostol was used, induction with oral misoprostol in an out-patient setting was associated with a better experience of labour than induction with a slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert.
FUNDING: Region Zealand Health Scientific Research Foundation supported the study financially.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02693587 on 26 February 2016 and with EudraCT number 2020-000366-42 on 23 January 2020 (retrospectively registered).
METHODS: We adapted a validated questionnaire regarding experience with induced labour. In two different hospitals, 123 women undergoing medical induction of labour completed a questionnaire after delivery. An independent-samples T-test was used for comparison of parametric continuous variables and Pearson's χ2 test was used for categorical data. The two groups differed regarding BMI and pregnancy complications. No adjusted estimates were calculated.
RESULTS: Women induced with oral misoprostol experienced more painful induction of labour (p = 0.019) and described feeling that their length of stay at hospital was excessive (p = 0.028). Overall, the experience of giving birth after induction of labour was reported as "good" among 87.8% of women induced with oral misoprostol compared with 72.7% of the women induced with a slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert (p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: In two departments characterized by several differences, including whether vaginal or oral misoprostol was used, induction with oral misoprostol in an out-patient setting was associated with a better experience of labour than induction with a slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert.
FUNDING: Region Zealand Health Scientific Research Foundation supported the study financially.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02693587 on 26 February 2016 and with EudraCT number 2020-000366-42 on 23 January 2020 (retrospectively registered).