Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth
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,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274949-e0274949 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0274949 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0274949 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Place, Katariina Rahkonen, Leena Verho-Reischl, Niina Adler, Katti Heinonen, Seppo Kruit, Heidi |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0274949 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2722285695</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A721201448</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_750e5b6012724688a3d55de89880950d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A721201448</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c570t-e83133aa0d5ab271057f42775779ecb8f3619a8579bf48b588072193bc5bf4e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUl2LEzEUHcQF19V_IBjwZX1ozcdkkvFBKGXVhYVlYX0OmeROmzJNxmSmur_Ev2vajmKlTGDCzTnn3ns4RfGG4DlhgnzYhDF63c374GGOqSjrsn5WXJKa0VlFMXv-z_1F8TKlDcacyaq6LH4t166zjYvDGsHPHqIDbwA5n48dDVjU6SbEj2iB-hhSD2ZwO0BpGO0TGpPzK6TRTnfO6iGDzVm17yOkwQXvtYuArpc3D-_RD5cxGrXBjAkFj4Y1oNbFNKAD_VVx0eouwevpf1V8-3zzuPw6u7v_crtc3M0MF3iYgWSEMa2x5bqhgmAu2pIKwYWowTSyZRWpteSibtpSNlxKLGj2ojE8F4Cxq-LtUbfvQlKTkUlRQSmVvKp5RtweETbojeqj2-r4pIJ26lAIcaV0HJzpQAmOgTcVJpleVlJqZjm3IOvctubYZq1PU7ex2YI14IeouxPR0xfv1moVdirPUVUEZ4HrSSCGg6tq65KBrtMewnicmxHC2X6zd_9Bz283oVY6L-B8G3JfsxdVi-wUxaQsZUbNz6DyZ2HrTE5d63L9hFAeCSaHJkVo_-5IsNpn9s8wap9ZNWWW_QblLeGV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2722285695</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Place, Katariina ; Rahkonen, Leena ; Verho-Reischl, Niina ; Adler, Katti ; Heinonen, Seppo ; Kruit, Heidi</creator><contributor>Ngene, Nnabuike Chibuoke</contributor><creatorcontrib>Place, Katariina ; Rahkonen, Leena ; Verho-Reischl, Niina ; Adler, Katti ; Heinonen, Seppo ; Kruit, Heidi ; Ngene, Nnabuike Chibuoke</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274949</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analgesia ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Birth ; Births ; Cesarean section ; Childbirth ; Childbirth & labor ; Domains ; Evaluation ; Gynecology ; Health risks ; Hemorrhage ; Induced labor ; Labor ; Labor, Induced (Obstetrics) ; Maternal child nursing ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Obstetrics ; Oxytocin ; Pain perception ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Population ; Pregnancy ; Questionnaires ; Regression analysis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Ripening ; Risk analysis ; Risk factors ; Risk groups ; Vagina ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274949-e0274949</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Place et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Place et al 2022 Place et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c570t-e83133aa0d5ab271057f42775779ecb8f3619a8579bf48b588072193bc5bf4e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c570t-e83133aa0d5ab271057f42775779ecb8f3619a8579bf48b588072193bc5bf4e33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2916-7870</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536610/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536610/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Ngene, Nnabuike Chibuoke</contributor><creatorcontrib>Place, Katariina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahkonen, Leena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verho-Reischl, Niina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adler, Katti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Seppo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruit, Heidi</creatorcontrib><title>Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth</title><title>PloS one</title><description>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.</description><subject>Analgesia</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Birth</subject><subject>Births</subject><subject>Cesarean section</subject><subject>Childbirth</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Domains</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Hemorrhage</subject><subject>Induced labor</subject><subject>Labor</subject><subject>Labor, Induced (Obstetrics)</subject><subject>Maternal child nursing</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Oxytocin</subject><subject>Pain perception</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Ripening</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Risk groups</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUl2LEzEUHcQF19V_IBjwZX1ozcdkkvFBKGXVhYVlYX0OmeROmzJNxmSmur_Ev2vajmKlTGDCzTnn3ns4RfGG4DlhgnzYhDF63c374GGOqSjrsn5WXJKa0VlFMXv-z_1F8TKlDcacyaq6LH4t166zjYvDGsHPHqIDbwA5n48dDVjU6SbEj2iB-hhSD2ZwO0BpGO0TGpPzK6TRTnfO6iGDzVm17yOkwQXvtYuArpc3D-_RD5cxGrXBjAkFj4Y1oNbFNKAD_VVx0eouwevpf1V8-3zzuPw6u7v_crtc3M0MF3iYgWSEMa2x5bqhgmAu2pIKwYWowTSyZRWpteSibtpSNlxKLGj2ojE8F4Cxq-LtUbfvQlKTkUlRQSmVvKp5RtweETbojeqj2-r4pIJ26lAIcaV0HJzpQAmOgTcVJpleVlJqZjm3IOvctubYZq1PU7ex2YI14IeouxPR0xfv1moVdirPUVUEZ4HrSSCGg6tq65KBrtMewnicmxHC2X6zd_9Bz283oVY6L-B8G3JfsxdVi-wUxaQsZUbNz6DyZ2HrTE5d63L9hFAeCSaHJkVo_-5IsNpn9s8wap9ZNWWW_QblLeGV</recordid><startdate>20221006</startdate><enddate>20221006</enddate><creator>Place, Katariina</creator><creator>Rahkonen, Leena</creator><creator>Verho-Reischl, Niina</creator><creator>Adler, Katti</creator><creator>Heinonen, Seppo</creator><creator>Kruit, Heidi</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2916-7870</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221006</creationdate><title>Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth</title><author>Place, Katariina ; Rahkonen, Leena ; Verho-Reischl, Niina ; Adler, Katti ; Heinonen, Seppo ; Kruit, Heidi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c570t-e83133aa0d5ab271057f42775779ecb8f3619a8579bf48b588072193bc5bf4e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analgesia</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Birth</topic><topic>Births</topic><topic>Cesarean section</topic><topic>Childbirth</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Domains</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Hemorrhage</topic><topic>Induced labor</topic><topic>Labor</topic><topic>Labor, Induced (Obstetrics)</topic><topic>Maternal child nursing</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Oxytocin</topic><topic>Pain perception</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Ripening</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Risk groups</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Place, Katariina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahkonen, Leena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verho-Reischl, Niina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adler, Katti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Seppo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruit, Heidi</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Place, Katariina</au><au>Rahkonen, Leena</au><au>Verho-Reischl, Niina</au><au>Adler, Katti</au><au>Heinonen, Seppo</au><au>Kruit, Heidi</au><au>Ngene, Nnabuike Chibuoke</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-10-06</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0274949</spage><epage>e0274949</epage><pages>e0274949-e0274949</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0274949</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2916-7870</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274949-e0274949 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2722285695 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analgesia Biology and Life Sciences Birth Births Cesarean section Childbirth Childbirth & labor Domains Evaluation Gynecology Health risks Hemorrhage Induced labor Labor Labor, Induced (Obstetrics) Maternal child nursing Medicine and Health Sciences Obstetrics Oxytocin Pain perception Patient outcomes Patients Population Pregnancy Questionnaires Regression analysis Research and Analysis Methods Ripening Risk analysis Risk factors Risk groups Vagina Womens health |
| title | Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T15%3A52%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Childbirth%20experience%20in%20induced%20labor:%20A%20prospective%20study%20using%20a%20validated%20childbirth%20experience%20questionnaire%20(CEQ)%20with%20a%20focus%20on%20the%20first%20birth&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Place,%20Katariina&rft.date=2022-10-06&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0274949&rft.epage=e0274949&rft.pages=e0274949-e0274949&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0274949&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA721201448%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2722285695&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A721201448&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_750e5b6012724688a3d55de89880950d&rfr_iscdi=true |