| Publikationstyp: | Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift |
| Art der Begutachtung: | Peer review (Publikation) |
| Titel: | Women׳s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes : results of an online-survey in Germany |
| Autor/-in: | Schwarz, Christiane Gross, Mechthild Maria Heusser, Peter Berger, Bettina |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002 |
| Erschienen in: | Midwifery |
| Band(Heft): | 35 |
| Seite(n): | 3 |
| Seiten bis: | 10 |
| Erscheinungsdatum: | 2016 |
| Verlag / Hrsg. Institution: | Elsevier |
| ISSN: | 0266-6138 1532-3099 |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Schlagwörter: | CAM; Misoprostol; Decision-aid; Decision-making |
| Fachgebiet (DDC): | 618.4: Geburt |
| Zusammenfassung: | Objective: Induction of labour (IOL) is a common procedure in high income countries. It may be conducted for medical as well as non-medical reasons.Women׳s views on induction of labour have not extensively been evaluated as yet. Also, women׳s preferences for certain methods of induction including alternative and complementary methods need further exploration in order to meet their expectations and needs. Design and setting: We published a short online questionnaire on women׳s views and experiences with IOL. Measurements and findings: We asked for indication and gestational age at induction; method of induction, duration of labour and mode of birth. We also asked for the extent of desired, and experienced support and participation in decision-making. Within four weeks of being online, 698 women answered the questionnaire. Most frequent reasons for induction were postmaturity (51.7%), doctor´s recommendation (31.6%) and medical complications (25.6%). Most women were induced with misoprostol or dinoprostone, but nearly half of the respondents were also offered, or asked for, complementary and alternative methods (CAM). 50% or more women would have preferred more information on alternatives to IOL, methods of IOL, side effects of the drugs, information on alternatives (59.2%) and on the medication (55.3%). Many would have wished for more support (49.9%) with decision-making (55.2%), and more time (54.1%). Key conclusion: Women׳s expectations and needs regarding IOL are widely unmet in current clinical practice. Implications for practice: There is a need for evidence-based information and decisional support for pregnant women who need to decide how to proceed once term is reached. |
| URI: | https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/8081 |
| Volltext Version: | Publizierte Version |
| Lizenz (gemäss Verlagsvertrag): | Lizenz gemäss Verlagsvertrag |
| Departement: | Gesundheit |
| Organisationseinheit: | Institut für Hebammenwissenschaft und reproduktive Gesundheit (IHG) |
| Enthalten in den Sammlungen: | Publikationen Gesundheit |
Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Es gibt keine Dateien zu dieser Ressource.
Zur Langanzeige
Schwarz, C., Gross, M. M., Heusser, P., & Berger, B. (2016). Women׳s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes : results of an online-survey in Germany. Midwifery, 35, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002
Schwarz, C. et al. (2016) ‘Women׳s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes : results of an online-survey in Germany’, Midwifery, 35, pp. 3–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002.
C. Schwarz, M. M. Gross, P. Heusser, and B. Berger, “Women׳s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes : results of an online-survey in Germany,” Midwifery, vol. 35, pp. 3–10, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002.
SCHWARZ, Christiane, Mechthild Maria GROSS, Peter HEUSSER und Bettina BERGER, 2016. Women׳s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes : results of an online-survey in Germany. Midwifery. 2016. Bd. 35, S. 3–10. DOI 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002
Schwarz, Christiane, Mechthild Maria Gross, Peter Heusser, and Bettina Berger. 2016. “Women׳S Perceptions of Induction of Labour Outcomes : Results of an Online-Survey in Germany.” Midwifery 35: 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002.
Schwarz, Christiane, et al. “Women׳S Perceptions of Induction of Labour Outcomes : Results of an Online-Survey in Germany.” Midwifery, vol. 35, 2016, pp. 3–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.002.
Alle Ressourcen in diesem Repository sind urheberrechtlich geschützt, soweit nicht anderweitig angezeigt.