The Relationship Between Labor Induction Duration and Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Descriptive Study
Keywords:
labor induction, duration of labor induction, clinical outcomesAbstract
Introduction: Labor induction, a widely used obstetric procedure, is a focus of this research study due to its significant but underexplored risks, particularly regarding duration and its impact on delivery outcomes. Particularly in the Thai context, where research study on induction duration and outcomes is limited, this study aims to provide valuable data for developing appropriate and effective care guidelines.
Research objective: To assess the relationship between the duration of labor induction and maternal and neonatal complications in a secondary - level hospital.
Research methodology: This retrospective descriptive study analyzed the electronic medical records of 160 term pregnancies that underwent induced labor between January 1, 2022, and July 31, 2023. The duration was measured from the initiation of medication to delivery. Simple random sampling was employed based on inclusion criteria, with a power of.90, a significance level of.05, and an effect size of.30. Data were collected using a content - validated recording form with established inter - rater reliability and were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Spearman's rank correlation at a significance level of <.01.
Results: Our findings showed significant positive correlations between induction duration and cesarean section (r = .41, p < .01), hospital length of stay (r = .70, p < .01), primiparity, and high body mass index (p < .01). Importantly, no correlation was found with severe complications (p > .01), underscoring the safety of longer induction durations.
Conclusion: Longer induction duration increases the likelihood of cesarean section and extended hospital stay but is not associated with severe complications.
Implication: Induction protocols should be developed considering individual factors, particularly for primiparous women and those with a high BMI, to improve efficiency and minimize potential adverse outcomes.
Downloads
References
Drife JO. The history of labour induction: How did we get here?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021 Nov 1;77:3-14.doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.07.004
Kumar N, Haas DM, Weeks AD. Misoprostol for labour induction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021 Nov 1;77:53-63.doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.09.003
Dahlen HG, Thornton C, Downe S, De Jonge A, Seijmonsbergen-Schermers A, Tracy S, et al. Intrapartum interventions and outcomes for women and children following induction of labour at term in uncomplicated pregnancies: a 16-year population-based linked data study. BMJ open. 2021 Jun 1;11(6):e047040. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047040
Dong S, Bapoo S, Shukla M, Abbasi N, Horn D, D'Souza R. Induction of labour in low-risk pregnancies before 40 weeks of gestation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2022 Mar 1;79:107-25. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.12.007
Vecchioli E, Cordier AG, Chantry A, Benachi A, Monier I. Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery: A French retrospective study. Plos one. 2020 Aug 7;15(8):e0237132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237132
Ramathibodi Chakri Naruebodindra Hospital. Annual statistical report 2022: Analysis of obstetric outcomes with focus on cesarean deliveries and labor induction. Samut Prakan: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Chakri Naruebodindra Hospital; 2022. Report No.: OB-2022-01. (in Thai)
AlKhalifa MA, Hsu S, ElHassan N, AlAnsari B, Ismael R, Raza G, et al. Induction of labor: a comparison of guidelines. Obstetrics and Gynecology Research. 2022;5(1):81-106. doi: 10.26502/ogr081
Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions 2021 Jul 30;18. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17
Espada-Trespalacios X, Ojeda F, Rodrigo NN, Rodriguez-Biosca A, Coll PR, Martin-Arribas A, et al. Induction of labour as compared with spontaneous labour in low-risk women: a multicenter study in Catalonia. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. 2021 Sep 1;29:100648. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2021.100648
Bruinsma A, Keulen JK, van Eekelen R, van Wely M, Kortekaas JC, van Dillen J. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women (INDEX trial). European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X. 2023 Mar 1;17:100178. doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100178
Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, Crowther CA, Gomersall JC. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020(7). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5
Dong S, Bapoo S, Shukla M, Abbasi N, Horn D, D'Souza R. Induction of labour in low-risk pregnancies before 40 weeks of gestation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2022 Mar 1;79:107-25. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.12.007
Mubasher S, Syed S, Malik SN, Ishtiaq A, Bilqis H, Noreen H. Comparison of frequency of postpartum hemorrhage in spontaneous versus prostaglandin induced labour at term gestation. Life and Science. 2024 Aug 15;5(3):08. doi: 10.37185/LnS.1.1.618
Patabendige M, Chan F, Vayssiere C, Ehlinger V, Van Gemund N, Le Cessie S, et al. Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: an individual participant data meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17794
Jeer B, Haberfeld E, Khalil A, Thangaratinam S, Allotey J. Perinatal and maternal outcomes according to timing of induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2023 Aug 4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.07.021
Young DC, Delaney T, Armson BA, Fanning C. Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial. PloS one. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227245
Khazardoost S, Ghotbizadeh F, Latifi S, Tahani M, Ali Rezaei MA, Shafaat M. The predictive value of trans-vaginal ultrasound measurements compared with bishop score in determining successful induction of labor. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research. 2022 Nov 14;1(2). doi: 10.17795/ojcr-8259
Melkie A, Addisu D, Mekie M, Dagnew E. Failed induction of labor and its associated factors in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2021 Mar 1;7(3). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06415
Coates D, Goodfellow A, Sinclair L. Induction of labour: experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians. Women and Birth. 2020 Feb 1;33(1):e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.002
Chua JY, Choolani M, Lalor JG, Yi H, Chong YS, Shorey S. Perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding labour induction and augmentation: A qualitative systematic review. Women and Birth. 2024 Feb 1;37(1):79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2023.09.003
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 ่Journal of Health and Nursing Research (Journal of Boromarajonani College of Nursing, Bangkok)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Article published Is the copyright of the Journal of Health and Nursing Research (Boromarajonani College of Nursing, Bangkok) Cannot be republished in other journals
