Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Peter von Dadelszen1,2, Susan Tohill3, Julie Wade3
1Institute of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Objectives:
To determine the extent to which a sample of NHS labor induction leaflets reflects evidence on labor induction.
Setting:
Audit of labor induction patient information leaflets-local from WILL trial (When to Induce Labor to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension) internal pilot sites or national-level available online.
Methods:
Descriptive analysis [n = 21 leaflets, 19 (one shared) in 20 WILL internal pilot sites and 2 NHS online] according to NHS "Protocol on the Production of Patient Information" criteria: general information (including indications), why and how induction is offered (including success and alternatives), and potential benefits and harms.
Results:
All leaflets described an induction indication. Most leaflets (n = 18) mentioned induction location and 16 the potential for delays due to delivery suite workloads and competing clinical priorities. While 19 leaflets discussed membrane sweeping (17 as an induction alternative), only 4 leaflets mentioned balloon catheter as another mechanical method. Induction success (onset of active labor) was presented by a minority of leaflets (n = 7, 33%), as "frequent" or in the "majority", with "rare" or "occasional" failures. Benefits, harms and outcomes following induction were not compared with expectant care, but rather with spontaneous labor, such as for pain (n = 14, with nine stating more pain with induction). Potential benefits of induction were seldom described [n = 7; including avoiding stillbirth (n = 4)], but deemed to be likely. No leaflet stated vaginal birth was more likely following induction, but most stated Cesarean was not increased (n = 12); one leaflet stated that Cesarean risks were increased following induction. Women's satisfaction was rarely presented (n = 2).
Conclusion:
Information provided to pregnant women regarding labor induction could be improved to better reflect women's choice between induction and expectant care, and the evidence upon which treatment recommendations are based. A multiple stakeholder-involved and evidence-informed process to update guidance is required.
More Related Videos
05:46Introduction of Intracapsular Rotary-cut Procedures IRCP: A Modified Hysteromyomectomy Procedures Facilitating Fertility Preservation
Published on: January 17, 2019
08:07Author Spotlight: Advancing Labor Management Through Electromyometrial Imaging for Understanding Uterine Contractions
Published on: May 26, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Local Anesthetics: Clinical Application as Epidural Anesthesia
Since epidural anesthetics can be infused through an epidural catheter, all types of drugs, including short-acting ones, can be administered. Chloroprocaine and lidocaine are examples of short and long-duration anesthetics, respectively. Bupivacaine...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...