ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2023
Women's experiences with unexpected induction of labor: A qualitative study.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating women's experiences and satisfaction with labour induction in India: a comparison of the participant generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index with standard methods.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- Women's Experiences of Induction of Labor and Birth After Prolonged Medical Induction: A Qualitative Study From Denmark.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- The lived experience of mothers who give birth after induction of labour in hospital settings in Southern Ethiopia: a phenomenological study.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Experience of Labour and Childbirth in a Sample of Portuguese Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInduction of labor is the most common intervention in modern obstetrics and is a growing phenomenon worldwide. Research on women's experiences with the induction of labor is scarce, especially on being unexpectedly induced. The purpose of this study is to explore women's experiences with unexpected induction of labor.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study including 11 women who had undergone an unexpected induction of labor within the last three years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the period February-March 2022. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation (STC).
resultsThe analysis led to four result categories. The decision to induce labor came as a surprise to the women, both for better and for worse. Information was not automatically provided and was often obtained through the women's own efforts. Consent to the induction mainly took the form of a decision by healthcare personnel, and the birth was a positive experience during which the woman felt looked after and reassured.
conclusionsThe women were very surprised when told they had to be induced and were unprepared for the situation. They received insufficient information, and several experienced stress from the time of induction up until they gave birth. Despite this, the women were satisfied with the positive birth experience, and they emphasized the importance of being looked after by empathetic midwives during childbirth.
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.