OUTCOMES OF INDUCTION OF LABOR IN WOMEN WHO DELIVERED AT KENYATTA NATIONAL HOSPITAL

Evalyne Jesang Masan, Blasio Osogo Omuga, Miriam C.A Wagoro

Abstract


Induction of labor has been strongly associated with poor maternal and perinatal outcomes compared with spontaneous labor (Guerra et al, 2009:1762, ACOG, 2009:386, WHO, 2012). Despite this, studies show that it is the fastest growing medical procedure. 25% of all deliveries at term are conducted through induction of labor (WHO, 2011)

The main purpose of the study was to determine the outcome of induction of labor in women who delivered through induction of labor, taking into consideration the demographic factors, social-economic factors, institutional factors and health indication for induction. The findings may be used by the hospital to evaluate the protocols on induction of labor. It also contributes to the body of knowledge on induction of labor and can be utilized by other researchers.

This was a descriptive cross- sectional institutional based study to determine the outcome of induction of labor in women at Kenyatta National Hospital. Social, demographic, health and institutional related factors were explored. The study population consisted of women admitted to postnatal wards at Kenyatta National Hospital after delivery through induction of labor.  A systematic sampling procedure was used to select study participants. A structured pretested questionnaire was used to interview the women and key informant interview was used to collect qualitative data. Collected data was analyzed using the SPSS for quantitative data and Nvivo for qualitative data.

In this study it was found that the rate of caesarean section following induction of labor was 38% and majority of the women took more than 24 hours to deliver after induction of labor. There was no major maternal complication but 19.5% babies developed complications that influenced the attitude of the women toward induction of labor. It was also shown that the outcome of induction of labor is influenced by age, type of employment, parity and women being given information on the nature of the procedure. It was established that pain management and client information on the procedure were wanting. Lastly, it was noted that some women were done induction of labor due to false labor which is not one of indication of induction.

The department of reproductive health should strive to reduce the rate of caesarean (38%), time taken between induction of labor and delivery and neonatal complications. The doctors and nurses should perform pain management interventions during induction of labor. Health workers should also improve on client involvement during induction of labor.

Keywords


Induction; labor; Outcomes; Women

Full Text:

PDF

References


ACOG; 2009; Induction of Labour; Obstet gynecol; vol 114; pp 386-97.

Amanda R., King V., Davis, E., Schechtel et al; 2008; Elective induction of labour: Safety and Harms; AHRQ vol 3; pp 400.

Arnetz,J.E., Almin, I., Bergström, K., et al; 2004; Active patient involvement in the establishment of physical therapy goals; Effects on treatment outcome and quality of care; vol. 6; Issue 2 ; pp 50-69.

Chan B.C., and Lao, T.T.; 1999; Influence of parity on the obstetric performance of mothers aged 40 years and above; Human Reproduction; vol.14; Issue 3; pp.833–837

Fawole B., Nafiou I., Machoki M et al; 2012; Unmet need for induction of labor in Africa: secondary analysis from the 2004 - 2005 WHO Global Maternal and Perinatal Health Survey (A cross-sectional survey); BMC Public Health; vol 12; issue 722.

Fraser D. M., Cooper M.; 2009; Myles textbook for midwives, Publisher Churchill Livingstone; 15th Edition; Chapter 30; pp 556-568.

Guerra G., Cecatti J., Souza J et al; 2009; Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America; BJOG,vol116, pp1762–1772.

Jacquemyn Y., Michiels I., Martens G.; 2012; Elective induction of labour increases caesarean section rate in low risk multiparous women; Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; vol 32, pp257–259.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and ICF Macro.; 2010; Kenya Demographic and HealthSurvey 2008-09; Calverton, Maryland; KNBS and ICF Macro.

KNH Health information department; 2012.

Macdorman M.F., Mathew T.J., Martin et al.; 2002; Trend and characteristics of induced labor in the united states 1989-98; Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology; vol 16 issue; pp263-273.

Mozurkewich1 E. L., Chilimigras J. L., Berman D.L et al; 2011; Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review;BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth; vol 11; issue 84; pp 1471-2393.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ;2001; Induction of labour. RCOG Guideline; RCOG.

Stock S.J.,Ferguson E., Duffy A et al.; 2012; Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study; BMJ e2838; vol 344; pp 1-13.

WHO (2011).recommendations for Induction of labour, WHO Geneva.

Wilson B. L.; 2007; Assessing the Effects of Age, Gestation, Socioeconomic Status, and Ethnicity on Labor Inductions; Journal of nursing scholarship; vol 39; issue 3; pp 208–213.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Kenyan Journal of Nursing & Midwifery

© Numid Publishers        ISSN:  2518-8631