Introduction: As labor induction rates continue to increase, so has the interest in performing induction in an outpatient setting for pregnancies defined as low-risk. Twenty women participated in the pilot study of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing inpatient and outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol. This study aimed to explore women's experiences of outpatient induction of labor and their views on this as an alternative method to inpatient labor induction.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, from November 2021 to January 2022 with eight women randomized to outpatient induction and four women randomized to inpatient induction. Verbatim transcribed interviews were analyzed using Graneheim and Lundman's content analysis.
Results: Three main categories emerged: the required framework around outpatient labor induction, what felt better at home and what felt safer at the hospital. To feel secure at home, women needed sufficient information, close follow-up while at home, and an easy-to-administer induction method. Outpatient labor induction gave women the opportunity of constant support from the partner and increased freedom of movement and self-expression. Some expressed relief over being randomized to inpatient labor induction, because of easy access to health providers, fetal monitoring, and not risking giving birth before arrival to the hospital. Women stressed the importance of being given a choice.
Conclusions: Outpatient labor induction contributed to a positive birth experience and should be considered as an alternative for women with low-risk pregnancies. Shared decision-making, including the opportunity for women to change their mind, is essential as induction and early labor affects women's whole childbirth experience.
Keywords: choice; induction of labor; misoprostol; outpatient induction; shared decision-making; women’s birth experiences.
© 2023 Hægeland H. A. et al.