Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35739476›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Maternal childbirth experience and induction of labour in each mode of delivery: a retrospective seven-year cohort study of 95,051 parturients in Finland.

Johanna M Joensuu, Hannu Saarijärvi, Hanna Rouhe, Mika Gissler, Veli-Matti Ulander, Seppo Heinonen, Paulus Torkki, Tomi S Mikkola

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06122168 ("Sweet Expectation and Positive Thinking" the Use of the Mandala in the Induction of Labor), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06122168 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

"Sweet Expectation and Positive Thinking" the Use of the Mandala in the Induction of Labor: a Randomized Clinical Pilot Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorBianca MasturzoRan2024 to 2025Enrolled52ConditionsNulliparity, Induction of Labor Affected Fetus / NewbornArmsMandala, Standard care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Outpatient cervical ripening with Foley balloon or mifepristone: Insights into the time taken to reach the active phase of labor.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Women satisfaction on choosing the cervical ripening method: Oral misoprostol versus balloon catheter.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Johanna M JoensuuHelsinki University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haartmaninkatu 2 PL 140, Helsinki, 00029, Finland. johanna.joensuu@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-7419
Hannu SaarijärviTampere University, Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-9037
Hanna RouheUniversity of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8956-4464
Mika GisslerFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Information Services Department, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8254-7525
Veli-Matti UlanderUniversity of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5235-1668
Seppo HeinonenUniversity of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5949-0874
Paulus TorkkiDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1127-4205
Tomi S MikkolaUniversity of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2049-088X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChildbirth experience has been shown to depend on the mode of delivery. However, it is unclear how labour induction influences the childbirth experience in different modes of delivery. Thus, we assessed the childbirth experience among mothers with spontaneous and induced labours.

designA retrospective cohort study.

settingChildbirths in four delivery hospitals in Helsinki and Uusimaa District, Finland, in 2012-2018. SAMPLE: 95051 childbirths excluding elective caesarean sections.

methodsObstetric data combined to maternal childbirth experience measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was analysed with univariate linear modelling and group comparisons. The primiparas and multiparas were analysed separately throughout the study due to the different levels of VAS.

main outcome measuresMaternal childbirth experience measured by VAS.

resultsThe negative effect of labour induction on the childbirth experience was discovered in each mode of delivery. Operative deliveries were perceived more negatively when they were preceded by labour induction. The rate of poor childbirth experience (VAS≤5) was higher for mothers with labour induction (ORs varying from 1.43 to 1.77) except in emergency caesarean sections. The negative effect of labour induction was smaller than the effect of mode of delivery, while successful vaginal delivery with induction (mean

conclusionsLabour induction generates more negative experiences for both primiparas and multiparas. The negative effect of labour induction is detected for all modes of delivery, being worst among labour induction resulting in operative delivery. The parturients facing cumulative obstetric interventions require special support and counselling during and after delivery.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionLabor, ObstetricCohort StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFinlandHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyRetrospective StudiesDelivery methodGiving birthInduced labourMaternal experienceMaternityPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35739476
PMCPMC9229460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.