Patients' perspectives regarding induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications: are our patients ready for the ARRIVE trial?

Abstract

Background: After careful review of the ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management) data, induction of labor prior to one's due date in the absence of maternal and fetal indications (which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently refers to as "elective") is now endorsed as a "reasonable" option by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). As a result, there has been much discussion among providers regarding how best to operationalize this ACOG recommendation into shared decision making regarding delivery planning. However, we lack a formal understanding of the perspectives of patients themselves on this topic.

Objective: To assess patient understanding and preference for induction of labor prior to one's due date.

Materials and methods: We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey of women in their third trimester of pregnancy presenting for routine obstetric care in August 2018. The survey included a series of questions designed to assess basic demographics, obstetric history, and patient understanding and opinions about the practice of induction of labor, with a focus on induction of labor prior to one's due date in the absence of maternal and fetal indications.

Results: A total of 108 women were approached for participation, and 100 women participated in this survey (93% participation). Of the participants, 99% were supportive of induction of labor for fetal indications, and 96% were supportive for maternal indications prior to one's due date. In contrast, 54% of participants were not interested in induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications prior to one's due date. Women opposed to induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications were almost 4 times more likely to be concerned about the possibility that induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications could cause fetal harm (odds ratio, 3.9; confidence interval, 1.2-13.2).

Conclusion: Nearly all women surveyed in our pilot study were interested in induction of labor prior to one's due date for maternal or fetal indications. 46% of those surveyed were interested in induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications prior to their due date. Concern about potential fetal harm was more likely among women opposed to induction of labor in the absence of maternal and fetal indications. As providers discuss delivery planning with their patients, these results may provide a useful context for operationalizing and individualizing the results of the ARRIVE trial for their patients.

Keywords: ARRIVE trial; elective; induction of labor; patient survey.