Preferences for induction of labor methods in India: a qualitative study of views and experiences of women, clinicians, and researchers

{"title":"Preferences for induction of labor methods in India: a qualitative study of views and experiences of women, clinicians, and researchers","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Induction of labor (IOL) is an increasingly common intervention, but experiences and preferences of induction methods are under-researched particularly in low -and middle-income countries. Understanding these perspectives is important to improve the childbirth experience.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To explore the experiences and preferences of IOL methods for women, clinicians, and researchers in the “Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction” (MOLI) study.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>This qualitative study was based in two government hospitals in the city of Nagpur, India—one tertiary referral hospital and one women's hospital. Fifty-three semi-structured interviews with women before and after induction (between days 1 and 5 postnatal), with women recruited to the “Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction (MOLI)” randomized controlled trial (NCT03749902). Eight focus group discussions with doctors, nurses, and trial research assistants before and during trial delivery were conducted. Thematic analysis was conducted using the Framework approach.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Four themes emerged: (1) <em>IOL methods,</em> (2) <em>impact of the study,</em> (3) <em>IOL and childbirth as one small part of the wider experiences in life</em>, and (4) <em>key moments in the childbirth experience.</em> For women, the safety of their baby was more important than any IOL method. Clinicians had apprehensions over misoprostol use which could affect protocol implementation; they reported that changing perception is difficult as usual practice feels “comfortable.” Women wanted to share their experiences and reported key moments during childbirth including vaginal examinations, “trying for normal,” bearing the pain, waiting, and relationships with staff.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Women did not have a strong preference for the IOL method and viewed childbirth positively when maternal and neonatal outcomes were good. Labor pain, vaginal examinations, a normal birth, and interactions with staff impacted women's experiences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000832/pdfft?md5=e76f967d42d729e7b9d67da589f19285&pid=1-s2.0-S2666577824000832-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Induction of labor (IOL) is an increasingly common intervention, but experiences and preferences of induction methods are under-researched particularly in low -and middle-income countries. Understanding these perspectives is important to improve the childbirth experience.

Objective

To explore the experiences and preferences of IOL methods for women, clinicians, and researchers in the “Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction” (MOLI) study.

Study Design

This qualitative study was based in two government hospitals in the city of Nagpur, India—one tertiary referral hospital and one women's hospital. Fifty-three semi-structured interviews with women before and after induction (between days 1 and 5 postnatal), with women recruited to the “Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction (MOLI)” randomized controlled trial (NCT03749902). Eight focus group discussions with doctors, nurses, and trial research assistants before and during trial delivery were conducted. Thematic analysis was conducted using the Framework approach.

Results

Four themes emerged: (1) IOL methods, (2) impact of the study, (3) IOL and childbirth as one small part of the wider experiences in life, and (4) key moments in the childbirth experience. For women, the safety of their baby was more important than any IOL method. Clinicians had apprehensions over misoprostol use which could affect protocol implementation; they reported that changing perception is difficult as usual practice feels “comfortable.” Women wanted to share their experiences and reported key moments during childbirth including vaginal examinations, “trying for normal,” bearing the pain, waiting, and relationships with staff.

Conclusion

Women did not have a strong preference for the IOL method and viewed childbirth positively when maternal and neonatal outcomes were good. Labor pain, vaginal examinations, a normal birth, and interactions with staff impacted women's experiences.

印度对引产方法的偏好:对妇女、临床医生和研究人员的观点和经验的定性研究
背景引产(IOL)是一种越来越常见的干预措施,但对引产方法的体验和偏好研究不足,尤其是在中低收入国家。研究设计这项定性研究在印度那格浦尔市的两家政府医院进行,其中一家是三级转诊医院,另一家是妇女医院。对参加 "米索前列醇或催产素引产(MOLI)"随机对照试验(NCT03749902)的妇女在引产前后(产后第 1 至 5 天)进行了 53 次半结构式访谈。在试验分娩前和分娩过程中,与医生、护士和试验研究助理进行了八次焦点小组讨论。结果出现了四个主题:(1) IOL 方法;(2) 研究的影响;(3) IOL 和分娩是人生更广泛经历中的一小部分;(4) 分娩经历中的关键时刻。对妇女来说,婴儿的安全比任何人工晶体植入方法都重要。临床医生对使用米索前列醇有顾虑,这可能会影响方案的实施;他们报告说,改变观念很难,因为通常的做法让人感觉 "舒服"。妇女希望分享她们的经验,并报告了分娩过程中的关键时刻,包括阴道检查、"尝试正常"、忍受疼痛、等待以及与工作人员的关系。分娩疼痛、阴道检查、正常分娩以及与医护人员的互动影响着产妇的体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信