Women's expectations and experiences of labor induction - a questionnaire-based analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although labor induction is a commonly used procedure in obstetrical care, there are limited data on its psycho-emotional effects on the woman. This study analysed the expectations and experiences of women in different routes of labor induction. The study's primary aim was to compare women's delivery experience if induced by orally administrated misoprostol (OMS) compared with misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI). Secondly, an evaluation of women's general satisfaction with induced labor was made, and factors associated with a negative experience. METHODS: Primiparous women (n = 196) with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks of gestation, with a Bishop's score ≤ 4 planning labor induction were randomly allocated to receive either OMS (Cytotec®) or MVI (Misodel®). Data were collected by validated questionnaires, the Wijma Delivery Expectation/Experience Questionnaire (A + B). The pre-labor part of the survey (W-DEQ version A) was given to participants to complete within 1 hour before the start of induction, and the post-labor part of the questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was administered after birth and collected before the women were discharged from hospital. RESULTS: It was found that 11.8% (17/143) reported a severe fear of childbirth (W-DEQ A score ≥ 85). Before the induction, women with extreme fear had 3.7 times increased risk of experiencing labor induction negatively (OR 3.7 [95% CI, 1.04-13.41]). CONCLUSION: No difference was identified between OMS and MVI when delivery experience among women induced to labor was analysed. Severe fear of childbirth before labor was a risk factor for a negative experience of labor induction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial register number NCT02918110 . Date of registration on May 31, 2016.

Evaluation for epilepsy surgery - Why do patients not proceed to operation?

PURPOSE: To investigate the reasons for not proceeding to surgery in patients undergoing presurgical evaluation for epilepsy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 401 consecutive patients who were evaluated for but did not proceed to surgery for epilepsy between 1990 and 2016 at three Swedish epilepsy surgery centers was performed. Reasons for not proceeding to surgery were categorized as inconclusive investigation, seizure onset within eloquent cortex, evidence of multiple seizure foci, infrequent seizures, risk of postoperative severe cognitive decline, patient or caregiver declining surgery or invasive investigation, severe psychiatric or somatic comorbidity, patient death during evaluation and complications during the evaluation. Chi-square tests were performed to compare ordered categorical variables. RESULTS: During the entire time period the main reasons for rejection were inconclusive investigation (34,4%) and multifocal seizure onset (20,0%). The risk for severe cognitive decline postoperatively was more often a cause for rejection in more recent years. Patients declining invasive EEG or surgery accounted for a minor but not insignificant proportion (14,2%) of rejections. CONCLUSIONS: Inconclusive results from the presurgical evaluation and multifocal epilepsy were the main causes for not proceeding to surgery. The proportion of patients opting to abstain from surgery was low compared to other recent studies.