Induction of labour: Experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians

Coates, D; Goodfellow, A; Sinclair, L

Induction of labour: Experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians

Coates, D

Goodfellow, A Sinclair, L

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Women and Birth, 2020, 33 (1), pp. e1 - e14
Issue Date:: 2020-02-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Coates-2020-Induction-of-labour-experiences-of-.pdf	Published Version	630.42 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Coates, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4463-7615	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Goodfellow, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sinclair, L https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-9745	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2020-04-08T07:30:19Z
dc.date.available	2019-06-03	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-04-08T07:30:19Z
dc.date.issued	2020-02-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Women and Birth, 2020, 33 (1), pp. e1 - e14	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1871-5192	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/139904
dc.description.abstract	© 2019 Australian College of Midwives Background: There has been a rise in induction of labour over recent decades. There is some tension in the literature in relation to when induction is warranted and when not, with variability between guidelines and practice. Given these tensions, the importance of shared decision-making between clinicians and women is increasingly highlighted as paramount, but it remains unclear to what extent this occurs in routine care. Method: Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence were considered to answer the research question “What are the views, preferences and experiences of women and clinicians in relation to induction of labour more broadly, and practices of decision-making specifically?” To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined. Findings: 20 papers met inclusion criteria, in relation to (a) women's preferences, experiences and satisfaction with IOL; (b) women's experience of shared-decision making in relation to induction; (c) interventions that improve shared decision-making and (d) factors that influence decision-making from the perspective of clinicians. Synthesis of the included studies indicates that decision-making in relation to induction of labour is largely informed by medical considerations. Women are not routinely engaged in the decision making process with expectations and preferences largely unmet. Conclusion: There is a need to develop strategies such as decision aids, the redesign of antenatal classes, and clinician communication training to improve the quality of information available to women and their capacity for informed decision-making.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Women and Birth	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.002	en_US
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject.classification	Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine	en_US
dc.title	Induction of labour: Experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	33	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Midwifery
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	33	en_US

Abstract:

© 2019 Australian College of Midwives Background: There has been a rise in induction of labour over recent decades. There is some tension in the literature in relation to when induction is warranted and when not, with variability between guidelines and practice. Given these tensions, the importance of shared decision-making between clinicians and women is increasingly highlighted as paramount, but it remains unclear to what extent this occurs in routine care. Method: Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence were considered to answer the research question “What are the views, preferences and experiences of women and clinicians in relation to induction of labour more broadly, and practices of decision-making specifically?” To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined. Findings: 20 papers met inclusion criteria, in relation to (a) women's preferences, experiences and satisfaction with IOL; (b) women's experience of shared-decision making in relation to induction; (c) interventions that improve shared decision-making and (d) factors that influence decision-making from the perspective of clinicians. Synthesis of the included studies indicates that decision-making in relation to induction of labour is largely informed by medical considerations. Women are not routinely engaged in the decision making process with expectations and preferences largely unmet. Conclusion: There is a need to develop strategies such as decision aids, the redesign of antenatal classes, and clinician communication training to improve the quality of information available to women and their capacity for informed decision-making.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/139904