Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting.

INTRODUCTION

Approximately every fourth labor is induced. In Finland, when labor is induced, it is commonly carried out with a catheter in the inpatient (IP) setting. However, in uncomplicated, full-term pregnancies, induction of labor (IOL) in the outpatient (OP) setting is also possible. Nevertheless, there is only a limited amount of information about the experiences of IOL in OP setting. Our study compared the experiences of catheter IOL in OP and IP settings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized study, including 113 women with uncomplicated full-term pregnancies with planned IOL. After catheter insertion, women were randomized into OP or IP settings: after dropouts, there were 53 women in the OP group and 54 in the IP. The experiences of IOL were evaluated with three sets of visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires: the general experience questionnaire (eight questions), the concurrent induction experience questionnaire (1, 5, 9, 13 hours; nine questions) and the postpartum experience questionnaire (14 questions).

RESULTS

Both groups had low VAS scores, indicating good experiences of IOL. Women in the OP group were less satisfied (mean VAS difference Δ = 7.8, P = .015) and more anxious (Δ = 4.8, P = .008) than were women in the IP group. In the course of the IOL, all women became less satisfied (Δ = 8.4, P = .001), had more contraction pain (Δ = 8.9, P = .020) and had a higher frequency of contractions (Δ = 9.9, P = .004) but they were more relaxed and experienced less fear (Δ = 6.9, P = .036, Δ = 5.3, P = .001, respectively). There was no interaction between group and time. According to the postpartum experience questionnaire, both groups had a similar good general experience of IOL (P = .736) but the OP group had more fear (Δ = 9.5, P = .009) and was more anxious (Δ = 9.0, P = .007). Most of the women would choose catheter IOL in a subsequent pregnancy (OP 82.6%, IP 87.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The women in the OP setting were less satisfied and more anxious than were the women in the IP setting. However, the differences were marginal and the general experience after IOL was good. IOL in an OP setting is thus a viable option in low-risk full-term pregnancies. Therefore, when using catheter IOL, both setting options should be available.