Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Women's Health Reviews
  4. Volume 21, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4048
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Background

Negative childbirth experiences impact the well-being of women and their families. With rising induction of labor (IOL) rates and the inconsistent evidence regarding its impact on childbirth experiences, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall effect of IOL expectant management on women’s childbirth experiences, defined as a woman’s self-assessment of her lasting memories of the childbirth event.

Methods

We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest and EBSCO) for RCTs and observational studies from 1970 to September 2023. Inclusion criteria covered women aged 19 and older with live, singleton, cephalic pregnancies at 37 0/7 until 41 6/7 weeks gestation. Quality was assessed using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. RevMan 5.4 software and random-effects meta-analysis were used, adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Of the 1.467 screened articles, we included nine studies from five European countries. Six studies (2.376 women) used the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Overall CEQ scores showed no significant IOL . expectant management differences (MD = 0.01 [95% CI -0.06, 0.08]; =0.78; I2 = 65%). Subgroup analyses favored IOL in RCTs (MD = 0.07 [95% CI 0.02, 0.13]; =0.006; I2 = 0%) and studies with ≥500 participants (MD = 0.09 [95% CI 0.02, 0.15]; =0.006; I2 = 0%). Conversely, four studies (48.324 women) using the Childbirth Experience Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) favored expectant management (OR = 0.73 [95% CI 0.63, 0.85]; <0.001; I2 = 86%).

Conclusion

VAS assessments suggest a more positive childbirth experience with the expectant management group. Improvements in the IOL process, transfer to delivery, and pain relief administration may benefit the IOL group. In contrast, the overall CEQ scores did not significantly differ between groups. Clinical practice should consider individualized approaches that align with patient needs and medical contexts. Limitations, such as variability in study quality and data heterogeneity, should be acknowledged.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023464153

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
2024-03-07
2024-11-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. OladapoO.T. TunçalpÖ. BonetM. WHO model of intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: transforming care of women and babies for improved health and wellbeing.BJOG2018125891892210.1111/1471‑0528.15237 29637727
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Hosseini TabaghdehiM. KolahdozanS. KeramatA. Prevalence and factors affecting the negative childbirth experiences: A systematic review.J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.2020332238493856
     [Google Scholar]
  3. TaheriM. TakianA. TaghizadehZ. JafariN. SarafrazN. Creating a positive perception of childbirth experience: systematic review and meta-analysis of prenatal and intrapartum interventions.Reprod. Health20181517310.1186/s12978‑018‑0511‑x 29720201
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ViirmanF. Hess EngströmA. SjömarkJ. Negative childbirth experience in relation to mode of birth and events during labour: A mixed methods study.Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.202328214615410.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.031 36731207
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DenckerA. NilssonC. BegleyC. Causes and outcomes in studies of fear of childbirth: A systematic review.Women Birth20193229911110.1016/j.wombi.2018.07.004 30115515
     [Google Scholar]
  6. ShoreyS. YangY.Y. AngE. The impact of negative childbirth experience on future reproductive decisions: A quantitative systematic review.J. Adv. Nurs.20187461236124410.1111/jan.13534 29394456
     [Google Scholar]
  7. MartinJ.A. HamiltonB.E. OstermanM.J.K. DriscollA.K. DrakeP. Births: Final data for 2017.Natl. Vital Stat. Rep.2018678150 30707672
     [Google Scholar]
  8. WHO recommendations: Induction of labour at or beyond term.2018Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240052796
  9. HenriksenL. GrimsrudE. ScheiB. LukasseM. Factors related to a negative birth experience – A mixed methods study.Midwifery201751333910.1016/j.midw.2017.05.004 28528179
     [Google Scholar]
  10. AdlerK. RahkonenL. KruitH. Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; a two-year cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth202020141510.1186/s12884‑020‑03106‑4 32693773
     [Google Scholar]
  11. LundhC. ØvrumA.K. DahlB. Women’s experiences with unexpected induction of labor: A qualitative study.European Journal of Midwifery20237March1710.18332/ejm/161481 36970251
     [Google Scholar]
  12. CoatesD. DonnolleyN. FoureurM. HenryA. Women’s experiences of decision-making and attitudes in relation to induction of labour: A survey study.Women Birth2021342e170e17710.1016/j.wombi.2020.02.020 32146087
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HongJ. AtkinsonJ. Roddy MitchellA. Comparison of maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management.JAMA Netw. Open202365e231316210.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162 37171818
     [Google Scholar]
  14. AlfirevicZ. KeeneyE. DowswellT. Methods to induce labour: A systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis.BJOG201612391462147010.1111/1471‑0528.13981 27001034
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Research: The meaning of the childbirth experience; A review of the literature ProQuest Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/c109a632b983d04e4762bb188f401487/1?cbl=34121&pq-origsite=gscholar
  16. PageM.J. McKenzieJ.E. BossuytP.M. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ2021372n7110.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DrifeJ.O. The history of labour induction: How did we get here?Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.20217731410.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.07.004 34330639
     [Google Scholar]
  18. DenckerA. TaftC. BergqvistL. LiljaH. BergM. Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth20101018110.1186/1471‑2393‑10‑81 21143961
     [Google Scholar]
  19. ACOG Practice bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor.Obstet. Gynecol.20091142 Pt 138639710.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
     [Google Scholar]
  20. WalkerK.F. BuggG.J. MacphersonM. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older.N. Engl. J. Med.2016374981382210.1056/NEJMoa1509117 26962902
     [Google Scholar]
  21. LarssonC. SaltvedtS. EdmanG. WiklundI. AndolfE. Factors independently related to a negative birth experience in first-time mothers.Sex. Reprod. Healthc.201122838910.1016/j.srhc.2010.11.003 21439526
     [Google Scholar]
  22. FalkM. NelsonM. BlombergM. The impact of obstetric interventions and complications on women’s satisfaction with childbirth a population based cohort study including 16,000 women.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth201919149410.1186/s12884‑019‑2633‑8 31829151
     [Google Scholar]
  23. NilvérH. WessbergA. DenckerA. Women’s childbirth experiences in the swedish post-term induction study (SWEPIS): A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.BMJ Open2021114e04234010.1136/bmjopen‑2020‑042340 33827832
     [Google Scholar]
  24. TurkmenS. TjernströmM. DahmounM. BolinM. Post‐partum duration of satisfaction with childbirth.J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res.201844122166217310.1111/jog.13775 30058272
     [Google Scholar]
  25. DenckerA. BergqvistL. BergM. GreenbrookJ.T.V. NilssonC. LundgrenI. Measuring women’s experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: A confirmatory factor analysis of the revised childbirth experience questionnaire.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth202020119910.1186/s12884‑020‑02869‑0 32252679
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LundhA. GøtzscheP.C. Recommendations by cochrane review groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.BMC Med. Res. Methodol.2008812210.1186/1471‑2288‑8‑22 18426565
     [Google Scholar]
  27. RibeiroC.M. BeserraB.T.S. SilvaN.G. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and anthropometric measures of obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open2020106e03350910.1136/bmjopen‑2019‑033509 32565448
     [Google Scholar]
  28. HigginsJ.P.T. ThomasJ. ChandlerJ. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4.Cochrane2023Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
    [Google Scholar]
  29. BergqvistL. DenckerA. TaftC. Women’s experiences after early versus postponed oxytocin treatment of slow progress in first childbirth – A randomized controlled trial.Sex. Reprod. Healthc.201232616510.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.003 22578752
     [Google Scholar]
  30. HildingssonI. KarlströmA. LarssonB. Childbirth experience in women participating in a continuity of midwifery care project.Women Birth2021343e255e26110.1016/j.wombi.2020.04.010 32595033
     [Google Scholar]
  31. CarlhällS. NelsonM. SvenvikM. AxelssonD. BlombergM. Maternal childbirth experience and time in labor: A population-based cohort study.Sci. Rep.20221211193010.1038/s41598‑022‑14711‑y 35831421
     [Google Scholar]
  32. MäkeläK. PalomäkiO. KorpiharjuH. HelminenM. UotilaJ. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with pain relief and birth experience among induced and spontaneous-onset labours ending in vaginal birth: A prospective cohort study.Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. X20231810018510.1016/j.eurox.2023.100185 37035413
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SchaalN.K. FehmT. AlbertJ. Comparing birth experience and birth outcome of vaginal births between induced and spontaneous onset of labour: A prospective study.Arch. Gynecol. Obstet.20193001414710.1007/s00404‑019‑05150‑8 30976970
     [Google Scholar]
  34. González-de la TorreH. Miñarro-JiménezS. Palma-ArjonaI. Jeppesen-GutierrezJ. Berenguer-PérezM. Verdú-SorianoJ. Perceived satisfaction of women during labour at the hospital universitario materno-infantil of the canary islands through the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ-E).Enfermería Clínica2021311213010.1016/j.enfcle.2020.05.002 32684375
     [Google Scholar]
  35. JohanssonC. FinnbogadóttirH. First-time mothers’ satisfaction with their birth experience – A cross-sectional study.Midwifery20197910254010.1016/j.midw.2019.102540 31580998
     [Google Scholar]
  36. BertucciV. BoffoM. MannariniS. Assessing the perception of the childbirth experience in Italian women: A contribution to the adaptation of the childbirth perception questionnaire.Midwifery201228226527410.1016/j.midw.2011.02.009 21489665
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Soriano-VidalF.J. Oliver-RoigA. Cabrero-GarcíaJ. Congost-MaestreN. DenckerA. Richart-MartínezM. The Spanish version of the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ-E): Reliability and validity assessment.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth201616137210.1186/s12884‑016‑1100‑z 27884123
     [Google Scholar]
  38. HendersonJ. RedshawM. Women’s experience of induction of labor: A mixed methods study.Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.201392101159116710.1111/aogs.12211 23808325
     [Google Scholar]
  39. HodnettE.D. HannahM.E. WestonJ.A. Women’s evaluations of induction of labor versus expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TermPROM Study Group.Birth199724421422010.1111/j.1523‑536X.1997.00214.pp.x 9460311
     [Google Scholar]
  40. AlkmarkM. CarlssonY. WendelS.B. Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: An observational study within the swedish postterm induction study (SWEPIS).Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.202110081463147710.1111/aogs.14155 33768520
     [Google Scholar]
  41. DaveyM.A. KingJ. Caesarean section following induction of labour in uncomplicated first births- A population-based cross-sectional analysis of 42,950 births.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth20161619210.1186/s12884‑016‑0869‑0 27121614
     [Google Scholar]
  42. GrobmanW.A. RiceM.M. ReddyU.M. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women.N. Engl. J. Med.2018379651352310.1056/NEJMoa1800566 30089070
     [Google Scholar]
  43. OsmundsonS.S. Ou-YangR.J. GrobmanW.A. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix.Obstet. Gynecol.2010116360160510.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eb6e9b 20733441
     [Google Scholar]
  44. GibsonK.S. WatersT.P. BailitJ.L. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.20142113249.e1249.e1610.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.016 24631440
     [Google Scholar]
  45. StockSJ FergusonE DuffyA FordI ChalmersJ NormanJE Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: Population based study.BMJ 2012; 344(may10 3):e283810.1136/bmj.e2838 22577197
     [Google Scholar]
  46. ChengY.W. KaimalA.J. SnowdenJ.M. NicholsonJ.M. CaugheyA.B. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.20122076502.e1502.e810.1016/j.ajog.2012.09.019 23063017
     [Google Scholar]
  47. DarneyB.G. SnowdenJ.M. ChengY.W. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes.Obstet. Gynecol.2013122476176910.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a6a4d0 24084532
     [Google Scholar]
  48. WessbergA. LundgrenI. EldenH. Being in limbo: Women’s lived experiences of pregnancy at 41 weeks of gestation and beyond – A phenomenological study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth201717116210.1186/s12884‑017‑1342‑4 28578685
     [Google Scholar]
  49. LouS. HvidmanL. UldbjergN. Women’s experiences of postterm induction of labor: A systematic review of qualitative studies.Birth201946340041010.1111/birt.12412 30561053
     [Google Scholar]
  50. BlanchG. LavenderT. WalkinshawS. AlfirevicZ. Dysfunctional labour: A randomised trial.BJOG1998105111712010.1111/j.1471‑0528.1998.tb09362.x 9442174
     [Google Scholar]
  51. WaldenströmU. HildingssonI. RubertssonC. RådestadI. A negative birth experience: Prevalence and risk factors in a national sample.Birth2004311172710.1111/j.0730‑7659.2004.0270.x 15015989
     [Google Scholar]
  52. LeapN. SandallJ. BucklandS. HuberU. Journey to confidence: Women’s experiences of pain in labour and relational continuity of care.J. Midwifery Womens Health201055323424210.1016/j.jmwh.2010.02.001 20434083
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
Loading
Exploring Women’s Childbirth Experiences in Labor Induction versus Expectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Current Women's Health Reviews 21, E070324227785 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048285132240229084803
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): breastfeeding; childbirth experience; expectant management; Induction of labor; maternal-infancy bonding; postpartum depression

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test