ArticlePloS one2022
Childbirth experience in induced labor: A prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) with a focus on the first birth.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's Childbirth Experiences in the WILL Randomised Trial (When to Induce Labour to Limit Risk in Pregnancy Hypertension): A Mixed Methods Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- Comparison of balloon catheter, oral misoprostol, or combination of both for cervical ripening in late-term and post-term nulliparous women: A Finnish randomized controlled multicenter pilot trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- Assessing the impact of indication for labor induction on delivery outcomes: a five-year cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Effects of Watson's Human Caring Theory-based nursing care on fear of childbirth and birth experience: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Women's Experiences of Induction of Labor and Birth After Prolonged Medical Induction: A Qualitative Study From Denmark.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- Associated factors for birth-related post-traumatic stress symptoms using a birth-specific measurement: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The use of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) in comparing the experiences of mothers with and without HIV in Tanzania.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Maternal satisfaction and birth experiences after elective induction vs. spontaneous onset in late-term pregnancy: a register-based study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Nulliparous Women's Experience in the Immediate Postpartum Period After Cervical Ripening According to the Method: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Sweet Expectation and Positive Thinking: The Use of Mandalas in Labor Induction. A Randomized Pilot Clinical Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Obstetric interventions' effects on the birthing experience.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFirst birth and labor induction are risk factors for negative childbirth experiences. As labor inductions are increasing, research into this high-risk group's childbirth experiences is important. We aimed to investigate whether nulliparity or factors related to labor induction, labor, and delivery explain the association.
methodsThis was a prospective study of 711 women undergoing labor induction at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The participants answered the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) after delivery (response rate 69.4%). The patient characteristics and delivery outcomes were collected from patient records. We analyzed the results for nulliparous and parous women.
resultsThe mean CEQ scores were 2.9 (SD 0.5) for nulliparous women (n = 408) and 3.2 (SD 0.5) for parous women (n = 303), on a scale of 1-4; higher scores represent more positive experiences. However, 7.3% of the women had negative childbirth experiences (8.8% nulliparous; 5.3% parous, p = 0.08). Negative experiences were associated with a cesarean section (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.8-9.3, p < 0.001) and a hemorrhage ≥ 1500 ml in vaginal delivery (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.03). In the separate CEQ domains analyses, nulliparity was associated with negative experiences in the "Own Capacity" domain (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.4, p = 0.03). Cervical ripening, oxytocin use, and daytime delivery were associated with negative experiences in at least one domain, whereas epidural or spinal analgesia was regarded positively in two domains and negatively in one.
conclusionsNulliparous women undergoing labor induction risk negative childbirth experiences mainly due to labor and delivery-related factors, similar to parous women. Their perceptions of their capacity and preparedness for labor and delivery should be enhanced antenatally. An effective labor induction protocol promoting as high a rate of vaginal delivery as possible and preparedness to promptly respond to postpartum hemorrhage are key for avoiding negative childbirth experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.