Outpatient labor induction-Exploring future potential by assessing eligibility in a historical cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Labor induction rates have increased over the last decades, and in many high-income countries, more than one in four labors are induced. Outpatient management of labor induction has been suggested in low-risk pregnancies to improve women's birth experiences while also promoting a more efficient use of healthcare resources. The primary aim of this paper was to assess the proportion of women in a historical cohort that would have been eligible for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol. Second, we wanted to report safety outcomes and assess efficacy outcomes for mothers and infants in pregnancies that met the criteria for outpatient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Criteria for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol were applied to a historical cohort of women with induction of labor at two Norwegian tertiary hospitals in the period January 1, through July 31, 2021. The criteria included low-risk women with an unscarred uterus expecting a healthy, singleton baby in cephalic position at term. The primary outcome was the proportion of women eligible for outpatient labor induction. Secondary outcomes included reasons for ineligibility and, for eligible women, safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 29.7% of the 1320 women who underwent labor induction in a singleton term pregnancy met the criteria for outpatient labor induction. We identified two serious adverse events that potentially could have occurred outside the hospital if the women had received outpatient care. The mean duration from initiation of labor induction to administration of the last misoprostol was 22.4 h. One in 14 multiparous women gave birth within 3 h after the last misoprostol dose. CONCLUSIONS: In this historical cohort, three in ten women met the criteria for outpatient management of labor induction with oral misoprostol. Serious adverse events were rare. The average time span from the initiation of labor induction to the last misoprostol was nearly 24 h. This suggests a potential for low-risk women with an induced labor to spend a substantial period of time at home before labor onset. However, larger studies testing or evaluating labor induction with oral misoprostol as an outpatient procedure are needed to draw conclusions.

A comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI - Misodel ®) was approved for labor induction in Europe in 2013, to date, no study has been published comparing MVI to Misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT). The aim of this study, performed as part of a quality improvement project, was to compare the efficacy and safety of 200 µg MVI versus 25 µg MVT for labor induction in nulliparous women. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 171 nulliparous singleton term deliveries induced with MVI (n = 85) versus MVT (n = 86) at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Norway, from November 2014 to December 2015. Primary outcomes were time from drug administration to delivery in hours and minutes and the rate of cesarean section (CS). Results were adjusted for Bishop Score and pre-induction with balloon catheter. RESULTS: Median time from drug administration to delivery was shorter in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (15 h 43 min versus 19 h 37 min, p = 0.011). Adjusted for confounding factors, mean difference was 6 h 3 min (p = 0.002). The risk of CS was 67% lower in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (11.8% versus 23.3%, OR = 0.33; adjusted 95% CI 0.13-0.81). Adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a setting of routine obstetric care, MVI seems to be a more efficient labor induction agent than MVT, and with a lower CS rate and no increase in adverse infant outcomes.

Needs led research: ensuring relevant research in two PhD projects within maternity care.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing concern regarding research waste and the mismatch between conducted research and the research needs of knowledge users. The Needs Led Research (NLR) approach is proposed as an effective method to ensure that research address actual evidence gaps that are relevant to the users of the knowledge. By search and reviewing literature and involving knowledge users, NLR aims to identify, verify, and prioritize research needs. This paper describes and compares the implementation of the NLR approach in two separate PhD projects within maternity care, and addresses the challenges encountered throughout the processes, aiming to offer valuable insights for future NLR initiatives. METHODS: The NLR processes consisted of four phases: (1) defining the scope (2) identifying and verifying research needs (3) prioritizing research needs and (4) designing the PhD projects. Literature searches were conducted during Phase 2, while knowledge user involvement took place in Phases 2 and 3. The knowledge user involvement, at a co-thinker and advocatory level, included knowledge user groups and surveys. Project groups, who were responsible for all decision-making, conducted Phases 1 and 4. The scopes of the PhD projects were labor induction (NLR-LINO) and fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries (NLR-LISTEN). RESULTS: In NLR-LINO, 17 research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. Among these, ten were rated as "very important" by a majority of the 322 survey respondents. The aim of the PhD LINO project was defined as "To investigate whether outpatient induction of labor is beneficial in a Norwegian setting." In NLR-LISTEN, seven research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. These were prioritized by 466 survey respondents, and the aim of the PhD LISTEN project was defined as "To investigate the methods used for fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries in Norway and evaluate adherence to evidence-based practice while also exploring potential reasons for any deviations." CONCLUSIONS: This paper shows that the NLR is a viable approach for prioritizing research. The findings highlight the impact of the initial scope on subsequent phases and emphasize the importance of pragmatic decision-making throughout the process. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that NLR requires dedicated resources, and if integrated into PhD projects, additional time and training should be allocated accordingly.

This paper addresses the issue of research waste and the mismatch between conducted research and the actual needs of the users of the knowledge. The Needs Led Research (NLR) approach is proposed as an effective method for identifying and prioritizing research needs that are relevant to knowledge users and have not been adequately addressed by existing research. The paper specifically examines the implementation of the NLR approach in two separate PhD projects within the field of maternity care, aiming to provide valuable insights for future NLR initiatives. The NLR process consists of four phases: defining the scope, identifying and verifying research needs, prioritizing those needs, and designing the PhD projects. Literature searches were conducted during Phase 2 to identify existing evidence gaps in the research literature. Knowledge users were involved in both the identification and prioritization of research needs in Phases 2 and 3 through surveys and group discussions. In conclusion, this paper shows that NLR is a viable approach for prioritizing research and ensuring its relevance to the users of the knowledge. It emphasizes the importance of defining a clear scope and making pragmatic decisions throughout the process. However, it also highlights the need for dedicated resources and additional time and training when integrating the NLR approach into PhD projects.