Exploring Women’s Childbirth Experiences in Labor Induction versus Expectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Negative childbirth experiences impact the well-being of women and their families. With rising induction of labor (IOL) rates and the inconsistent evidence regarding its impact on childbirth experiences, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall effect of IOL versus expectant management on women’s childbirth experiences, defined as a woman’s self-assessment of her lasting memories of the childbirth event. Methods: We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest and EBSCO) for RCTs and observational studies from 1970 to September 2023. Inclusion criteria covered women aged 19 and older with live, singleton, cephalic pregnancies at 37 0/7 until 41 6/7 weeks gestation. Quality was assessed using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. RevMan 5.4 software and random-effects meta-analysis were used, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Of the 1.467 screened articles, we included nine studies from five European countries. Six studies (2.376 women) used the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Overall CEQ scores showed no significant IOL vs. expectant management differences (MD = 0.01 [95% CI -0.06, 0.08]; p=0.78; I2 = 65%). Subgroup analyses favored IOL in RCTs (MD = 0.07 [95% CI 0.02, 0.13]; p=0.006; I2 = 0%) and studies with ≥500 participants (MD = 0.09 [95% CI 0.02, 0.15]; p=0.006; I2 = 0%). Conversely, four studies (48.324 women) using the Childbirth Experience Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) favored expectant management (OR = 0.73 [95% CI 0.63, 0.85]; p<0.001; I2 = 86%). Conclusion: VAS assessments suggest a more positive childbirth experience with the expectant management group. Improvements in the IOL process, transfer to delivery, and pain relief administration may benefit the IOL group. In contrast, the overall CEQ scores did not significantly differ between groups. Clinical practice should consider individualized approaches that align with patient needs and medical contexts. Limitations, such as variability in study quality and data heterogeneity, should be acknowledged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".