The Proportion of Failed Induction of Labour and Associated Factors among Women Undergoing Induction of Labour in Dessie Referral Hospital: Northeast Ethiopia a Cross-sectional Study
Asian Journal of Pregnancy and Childbirth,
Page 100-112
Abstract
Background: There are several complications of pregnancy that confer significant ongoing risk to the mother or fetus. For these conditions, induction of labour is as an artificial termination of pregnancy utilized to decrease both maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The process of inducing labour is not always successful and sometimes fails to achieve a safe vaginal delivery.
Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on medical records of 319 registered women who undergo labour induction at Dessie referral hospital from January 01 to February 2017. Systematic sampling techniques were used to select the samples. The data was cleaned, edited, coded, and entered into EPI INFO version 3.5 and exported and analyzed by SPSS with windows version 20.0. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression statistical model was used to identify factors associated with the outcome variable. Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was computed to see the strength of association.
Results: The proportion of failed induction of labour was 19.7 %. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that women live in a rural area [4.171(1.358-12.807)], primipara [AOR=1.72(1.67-4.415)] and women whose Bishop score is unfavourable [0.147(0.066-0.327)] were significantly associated with failed induction of labour.
Conclusion: The proportion of failed induction of labour was relatively high in the study area. Variables which increased the likelihood of failed induction were living rural area, primigravidity and unfavourable bishop score before induction of labour.
Keywords:
- Proportion
- failed induction of labour
- associated factors
- Ethiopia
How to Cite
References
DOI:10.1111/jmwh.12255
Banos N, Migliorelli F, Posadas E, Ferreri J, Palacio M. Definition of failed induction of Labor and Its Predictive Factors: Two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38(3): 161-9.
DOI: 10.1159/000433429
Caughey AB. Induction of labour: Does it increase the risk of cesarean delivery? BJOG. 2014;121(6):658-61.
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12329
Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(6):486e1-9.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.014
Davey MA, King J. Caesarean section following induction of labour in uncomplicated first births- a population-based cross-sectional analysis of 42,950 births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:92.
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0869-0
Dunn L, Kumar S, Beckmann M. Maternal age is a risk factor for caesarean section following induction of labour. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(4):426-31.
DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12611
Lawani OL, Onyebuchi AK, Iyoke CA, Okafo CN, Ajah LO. Obstetric outcome and significance of labour induction in a health resource poor setting. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014;2014:419621.
DOI: 10.1155/2014/419621
Mhaske N, Agarwal R, Wadhwa RD, Basannar DR. Study of the Risk Factors for Cesarean Delivery in Induced Labors at Term. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015; 65(4):236-40.
DOI: 10.1007/s13224-014-0596-2
Girma W, Tseadu F, Wolde M. Outcome of Induction and Associated Factors among Term and Post-Term Mothers Managed at Jimma University Specialized Hospital: A Two Years’ Retrospective Analysis. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2016;26(2):121.
Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v26i2.6
Hurissa BF, Tefera Belachew MG. Prevalence of failed induction of labor and associated factors among women delivered in Hawassa public health facilities, Ethiopia. Journal of Womens Health Care. 2015;04(05).
DOI: 10.4172/2167-0420.1000253
Levine LD, Elovitz MA, Limaye M, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Induction, labor length and mode of delivery: The impact on preeclampsia-related adverse maternal outcomes. J Perinatol. 2016;36(9):713-7.
DOI:10.1038/jp.2016.84
Hussain AA, Yakoob MY, Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Elective induction for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(Suppl 3):S5.
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S5
Nippita TA, Khambalia AZ, Seeho SK, Trevena JA, Patterson JA, Ford JB, et al. Methods of classification for women undergoing induction of labour: A systematic review and novel classification system. BJOG. 2015;122(10):1284-93.
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13478
Siddiqui SA. Obstetric factors for unsuccessful trial of labor in second-order birth following previous cesarean. Ann Saudi Med. 2013;33(4):356-62.
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2013.356
Sinkey RG, Lacevic J, Reljic T, Hozo I, Gibson KS, Odibo AO, et al. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks among nulliparous women: The impact on maternal and neonatal risk. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0193169.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193169
Zhao Y, Flatley C, Kumar S. Intrapartum intervention rates and perinatal outcomes following induction of labour compared to expectant management at term from an Australian perinatal centre. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(1):40-8.
DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12576
Rattigan MI, Atkinson AL, Baum JD. Delivery route following elective induction of labor at term: Analysis of 807 patients. J Clin Med Res. 2013;5(4):305-8.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jocmr1476w
Arrowsmith S, Wray S, Quenby S. Maternal obesity and labour complications following induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy. BJOG. 2011;118(5):578- 88.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02889.x
Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Flenady V, Kumar S. Predictors of mode of birth and duration of labour following induction using prostaglandin vaginal gel. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(2):168-75.
DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12588
-
Abstract View: 2604 times
PDF Download: 1104 times
