Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez; Deirdre O'Malley; Deirdre Daly

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.1

Home Browse Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez ¹, Deirdre O'Malley^1,2, Deirdre Daly¹

PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2021

Author details Author details

¹ School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland
² Nursing, Midwifery & Health Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Dundalk, A91 K584, Ireland

Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Deirdre O'Malley
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Deirdre Daly
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Maternal and Child Health collection.

Abstract

Background: Augmentation of labour (AOL) is the most common intervention to treat labour dystocia. Previous research reported extensive disparities in AOL rates across countries and institutions. Despite its widespread use, women’s views on and experiences of intrapartum augmentation with infused synthetic oxytocin are limited.
Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin after spontaneous onset of labour will be conducted. Qualitative studies and studies employing a mixed methods design, where qualitative data can be extracted separately, will be included, as will surveys with open-ended questions that provide qualitative data. A systematic search will be performed of the databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care and Web of Science Core Collection from the date of inception. The methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool. A three-stage approach, coding of data from primary studies, development of descriptive themes and generation of analytical themes, will be used to synthesise findings. Confidence in findings will be established by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research.
Discussion: This qualitative evidence synthesis may provide valuable information on women’s experiences of AOL and contribute to a review of clinical practice guidelines for maternity care providers.
PROSPERO registration: CRD42021285252 (14/11/2021)

Keywords

Birth experience, Oxytocin, Pregnancy, Labor Obstetric, Qualitative systematic review, acceleration of labour

Corresponding author: Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez holds a PhD scholarship, awarded in 2021, from the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Alòs-Pereñíguez S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Alòs-Pereñíguez S, O'Malley D and Daly D. Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2021, 4:127 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.1) First published: 09 Dec 2021, 4:127 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.1) Latest published: 20 Apr 2022, 4:127 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.2)

Introduction

Augmentation of labour (AOL), the process of stimulating the uterus to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of contractions after spontaneous onset of labour (World Health Organization (WHO), 2014), has been identified as one of the most common obstetric interventions (Miller et al., 2016; Seijmonsbergen-Schermers et al., 2020). Traditionally performed using a synthetic oxytocin infusion following artificial rupture of membranes, it is indicated in the management of labour dystocia, one of the main underlying reasons for performing caesarean sections (Boyle et al., 2013; Riddell et al., 2017). The proportion of women who have their labour augmented ranges from 22% to 71% in nulliparous women, and from 7% to 38% in multiparous women in high income countries, even after adjusting by population characteristics (Seijmonsbergen-Schermers et al., 2020). Wide variation is also seen across maternity services within the same country (Helbig et al., 2019; Seijmonsbergen-Schermers et al., 2018).

While the main indication for AOL is for the management of labour dystocia (Bugg et al., 2013), the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis (Karaçam et al., 2014; Neal et al., 2015a; Neal et al., 2015b; Oladapo et al., 2018). In addition, there does not appear to be agreement on the regimens and doses of oxytocin that should be used (Daly et al., 2020). Two systematic reviews on AOL have demonstrated its effectiveness in accelerating labour progression, with a reduction of two hours in mean labour duration (Bugg et al., 2013; Kenyon et al., 2013). However, data regarding women’s experiences of AOL in both reviews was limited and recent studies have shown that AOL has been associated with negative childbirth experiences (Johansson & Finnbogadóttir, 2019; Nahaee et al., 2020; Nystedt & Hildingsson, 2018).

Childbirth is a transcendental life experience that can lead to either positive feelings of empowerment and fulfilment or negative feelings of disappointment and fear, and can influence women’s decision towards having another baby or a desire for a caesarean section in future pregnancies (Fuglenes et al., 2011; Khajehei & Doherty, 2018; Larkin et al., 2012; Nystedt & Hildingsson, 2014; Suwanrath et al., 2021). The WHO recommendations on intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience state that most women pursue a physiological birth and want to be involved in decision-making when medical interventions are needed (WHO, 2018).

Women’s experiences and perspectives of AOL are not well understood. While there is a plethora of quantitative research on AOL, there are very few qualitative studies about women's experiences. This qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) aims to integrate the findings from studies reporting on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin after spontaneous onset of labour in order to deepen understanding and contribute to future reviews of clinical practice guidelines for maternity care providers.

Protocol

Inclusion criteria

We use the SPIDER (sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, and research type) tool (Cooke et al., 2012) to identify the key concepts for inclusion criteria in the QES.

-Sample: women of any age, parity, and cultural background who, after spontaneous onset of labour, underwent AOL with synthetic oxytocin.

-Phenomenon of Interest: women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin. Alternative terminology referring to AOL such as augmentation, acceleration or stimulation of labour has been considered to ensure a wide retrieval of data (Table 1).

Table 1. Search terms.

Sample	women* OR woman* OR mother* OR parturit* OR matern* OR pregnan* OR nullipar* OR multipar* OR postnatal* OR perinatal* OR post-natal* OR peri-natal* OR childbirth* OR birth* OR postpartum*
Phenomenon of Interest	(augment* OR accelerat* OR stimulat* OR speed) N4 (labor OR labour* OR birth* OR parturit* OR childbirth* OR “child birth”) OR oxitoc OR oxytoc* OR ocytoc* OR ocitoc* OR pitocin OR syntocinon OR “oxytocin-induce” OR “oxytocin prepar”
Design or Evaluation	(“qualitativ” OR “qualitative stud” OR “qualitative analysis” OR “qualitative method” OR “focus group” OR interview* OR “triangulat” OR “narrative” OR “naturalistic inqur” OR “feminist research” OR “grounded theor” OR “hermeneutic” OR “phenomenol” OR “ethnograph” OR “ethnonurs” OR “ethnological research” OR “ethnomethodolog” OR “purposive sampl” OR “theoretical sampl” OR “thematic analysis” OR “content analysis” OR “discourse analysis” OR “action research” OR “participatory research” OR “constant comparative method” OR “mixed model” OR “mixed method” OR “mixed design” OR “multiple method” OR multimethod OR “open-ended question” OR “open-ended survey” OR “open-ended interview”) OR (experien OR view* OR percept* OR perceiv* OR attitud* OR believ* OR belief* OR perspective* OR opinion* OR express* OR thought* OR think* OR feel* OR reaction* OR emotion* OR comprehen* OR understand* OR stance* OR “personal valu” OR awar OR approach* OR “self report” OR self-report OR emote*)
Research type	Published studies in English OR Spanish language

-Design: qualitative studies of any design including phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research. Mixed methods design studies where qualitative data can be extracted separately will also be considered for inclusion, as well as survey designs with open-ended questions that provide qualitative data.

-Evaluation: inductive themes representative of women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin.

-Research type: published qualitative studies, in English or Spanish language.

Search strategy and study selection

An initial scoping search of MEDLINE and CINAHL was undertaken to identify potentially relevant studies and search terms. Search terms were developed using the SPIDER acronym and adapted for each database (Table 1). The databases to be searched are MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care and Web of Science Core Collection. We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature and reference lists of studies identified for inclusion in the review.

No time restrictions will be applied, and studies published in English or Spanish will be included. Following a search of each database, all citations retrieved will be uploaded into EndNote (version EN20) and duplicates removed. The remaining records will be uploaded to Covidence software for eligibility screening. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers (SAP and DOM) against the inclusion criteria. Full texts of potentially relevant studies will be reviewed. Reasons for exclusion of full text of papers that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the full report. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the screening process will be resolved through discussion, or with an additional review author (DD) until consensus is achieved. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final QES and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Page et al., 2021).

Assessment of methodological quality

Appraising methodological quality of the studies included in a QES can strengthen its comprehension and applicability. There are many appraisal tools available and researchers might decide which to use according to their objectives, expertise, time and resources (Majid & Vanstone, 2018). In this review, we have chosen the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool. This tool assesses the quality of the methods and the study reporting across 12 criteria (Table 2). It was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative data (Thomas et al., 2003) and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2021).

Table 2. Criteria for methodological quality assessment (Thomas et al., 2003).

Quality of study reporting	A - Aims and objectives clearly reported
	B - Adequately described the context of the research
	C - Adequately described the sample & sampling methods
	D - Adequately described the data collection methods
	E - Adequately described the data analysis methods
There was good or some attempt to establish the:	F - Reliability of the data collection tools
	G - Validity of the data collection tools
	H - Reliability of the data analysis
	I - Validity of the data analysis
Quality of the methods	J - Used the appropriate data collection methods to allow for expression of views
	K - Used the appropriate methods for ensuring the analysis was grounded in the views
	L - Actively involved the participants in the design and conduct of the study

Two reviewers will independently quality assess the primary studies (SAP and DOM). The results of the critical appraisal will be reported in narrative and tabular form. All studies, regardless of the results of their methodological quality, will undergo data extraction and synthesis (where possible), as even poorly conducted qualitative studies may provide important data to our QES.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data will be extracted using a purposively designed data extraction form (Alòs-Pereñíguez et al., 2021). The data extracted will include specific details about the setting, study period, aim, design, description of the population, methods of data collection and analysis, and findings regarding women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin. When synthesising the data from the studies included, we will use the thematic synthesis approach developed by Thomas & Harden (2008). This method enables description of recurring themes in the primary studies, as well as creating new concepts and hypotheses. Following the authors’ guidance, the synthesis will be performed in three sequential stages that may overlap to some degree: 1) line by line coding of data from primary studies, 2) development of descriptive themes and 3) generating analytical themes. Coding will be conducted independently by SAP and one other review author (DOM and DD). Subsequently, similarities and differences will be identified, and codes will be grouped into descriptive categories and, through their further interpretation, reflection and discussion within the review team analytical themes will be generated.

Assessing confidence in the findings

The level of confidence in the review findings will be established using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) (Booth et al., 2018; Colvin et al., 2018; Glenton et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2018a; Lewin et al., 2018b; Munthe-Kaas et al., 2018; Noyes et al., 2018). GRADE-CERQual assesses, individually, every distinct review finding according to its four components: the methodological limitations, coherence, extant or adequacy of contributing data, and relevancy to the review question. Then, an overall assessment of confidence in each finding is categorised as high, moderate, low, or very low confidence (Table 3). Findings will be deemed to be of ‘high confidence’ at the outset and will be downgraded accordingly if there are concerns regarding any of the GRADE-CERQual components. Following the GRADE-CERQual recommendations, this process will be performed independently by two reviewers (SAP and DOM), facilitating opportunities for reflection and discussion within the review team (Lewin et al., 2018a).

Table 3. GRADE-CERQual assessment (Lewin et al., 2018b).

Level of confidence	Definition
High	It is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest
Moderate	It is likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest
Low	It is possible that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest
Very low	It is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest

Study status

A total of 9306 articles were retrieved and title and abstract screening is in progress. The review will be finished in February 2022.

Discussion

This QES will be the first to date to synthesise qualitative research on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin after spontaneous onset of labour. Due to the frequency with which AOL is carried out in modern maternity care, it is vital that midwives, obstetricians, and policy makers have a clear understanding of how women experience this intervention. The findings of this review will provide a deeper insight into the current gaps in clinical practice. This evidence will potentially support the development of new strategies to improve women’s care into the future.

We will disseminate the findings of this QES through publication in a peer-reviewed journal that predominantly publishes maternity care research and through academic conference presentations. Social media posts (e.g. Instagram and Twitter) will be also employed as part of the dissemination strategy.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Open Science Framework: Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin. A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2QYJC (Alòs-Pereñíguez et al., 2021).

This project contains the following extended data:

Appendix 1: Data.Extraction.Form.Excel.

Reporting guidelines

Open Science Framework: PRISMA-P Checklist for ‘Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion. A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis’: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2QYJC.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Alòs-Pereñíguez S A, O’Malley D, Daly D, et al.: Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion. A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2QYJC
Booth A, Lewin S, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, et al.: Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(1): 33–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG: Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (6): CD007123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–1443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Daly D, Minnie KCS, Blignaut A, et al.: How much synthetic oxytocin is infused during labour? A review and analysis of regimens used in 12 countries. PLoS One. 2020; 15(7): e0227941. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Fuglenes D, Aas E, Botten G, et al.: Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(1): 45.e41–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Helbig S, Petersen A, Sitter E, et al.: Inter-institutional variations in oxytocin augmentation during labour in German university hospitals: a national survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1): 238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Johansson C, Finnbogadóttir H: First-time mothers’ satisfaction with their birth experience – a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2019; 79: 102540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Karaçam Z, Walsh D, Bugg GJ: Evolving understanding and treatment of labour dystocia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182: 123–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kenyon S, Tokumasu H, Dowswell T, et al.: High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (7): CD007201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Khajehei M, Doherty M: Women's experience of their sexual function during pregnancy and after childbirth: a qualitative survey. Br J Midwifery. 2018; 26(5): 318–328. Publisher Full Text
Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D: 'Not enough people to look after you': An exploration of women's experiences of childbirth in the Republic of Ireland. Midwifery. 2012; 28(1): 98–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci. 2018a; 13(Suppl 1): 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018b; 13(Suppl 1): 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Majid U, Vanstone M: Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools. Qual Health Res. 2018; 28(13): 2115–2131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, et al.: Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet. 2016; 388(10056): 2176–2192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Nahaee J, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Abbas-Alizadeh F, et al.: Pre- and during-labour predictors of low birth satisfaction among Iranian women: a prospective analytical study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1): 408. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Neal JL, Lowe NK, Schorn MN, et al.: Labor Dystocia: A Common Approach to Diagnosis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015a; 60(5): 499–509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Neal JL, Ryan SL, Lowe NK, et al.: Labor Dystocia: Uses of Related Nomenclature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015b; 60(5): 485–498. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Diverse definitions of prolonged labour and its consequences with sometimes subsequent inappropriate treatment. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Women's and men's negative experience of child birth-A cross-sectional survey. Women Birth. 2018; 31(2): 103–109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Oladapo OT, Diaz V, Bonet M, et al.: Cervical dilatation patterns of 'low-risk' women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018; 125(8): 944–954. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Panda S, Begley C, Daly D: Clinicians' views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. PLoS One. 2018; 13(7): e0200941. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Riddell CA, Hutcheon JA, Strumpf EC, et al.: Inter-institutional Variation in Use of Caesarean Delivery for Labour Dystocia. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017; 39(11): 988–995. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, van den Akker T, Rydahl E, et al.: Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: A multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(5): e1003103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, Zondag DC, Nieuwenhuijze M, et al.: Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Smith V, Muldoon K, Brady V, et al.: Assessing fetal movements in pregnancy: A qualitative evidence synthesis of women's views, perspectives and experiences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 197. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Suwanrath C, Chunuan S, Matemanosak P, et al.: Why do pregnant women prefer cesarean birth? A qualitative study in a tertiary care center in Southern Thailand. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Thomas J, Harden A: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Thomas J, Sutcliffe K, Harden A, et al.: Children and healthy eating: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, 2003. Reference Source
WHO: WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva, 2018. Reference Source
World Health Organization (WHO): WHO Recommendations for Augmentation of Labour. Geneva, 2014. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2021

Author details Author details

Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Deirdre O'Malley
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Deirdre Daly
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Silvia Alòs-Pereñíguez holds a PhD scholarship, awarded in 2021, from the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 20 Apr 2022, 4:127

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.2

version 1

Published: 09 Dec 2021, 4:127

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.1

© 2021 Alòs-Pereñíguez S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1211

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Alòs-Pereñíguez S, O'Malley D and Daly D. Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2021, 4:127 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13467.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2021

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Feb 2022

Linda Biesty, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14678.r31348

This is an incredibly important study and I am delighted to read the protocol. Some minor points of thought that the review team might consider:

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the

This is an incredibly important study and I am delighted to read the protocol. Some minor points of thought that the review team might consider:

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?
In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?
The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?
I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: My research areas of interest lie in all aspects of midwifery and maternity care. My methodological areas of expertise are qualitative research methodologies and methods including qualitative evidence synthesis.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

20 Apr 2022

Author Response
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table ... Continue reading
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table below and highlighted changes in the text of the manuscript.

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?

Response: Our QES have included 25 studies providing qualitative data on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion from 14 different countries. Of these, some have high AOL rates, others not. This has emerged in our preliminary findings. For example, some women expected to be augmented during labour, while others did not anticipate an AOL and did not read/seek information about it. We feel that the large and varied dataset will ensure that variation rates of AOL will not negatively impact on our QES. Furthermore, assessing the quality of our review findings using CERQual and, in particular, the ‘adequacy and relevance’ components will further address any concern about variations in prevalence of AOL in different jurisdictions.

In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?

Response: Regarding the methodological quality appraisal, we agreed to use the different criteria as explained in the original article (Thomas et al. 2003). For example, regarding the “Reliability of the data collection tools” (F), we considered they met the criteria if the authors used a topic guide or they provided examples of the topics addressed during the interviews. For “Validity of the data collection tools” (G), any type of recording was considered sufficient. Regarding “Reliability of the data analysis” (H), we considered the criteria met if the more than one author participated in the data analysis and/or if the authors contacted an additional person with qualitative expertise to review the data analysis. We also considered the amount of data provided to support their findings. Regarding “Validity of the data analysis” (I), the criteria was met if the authors conducted negative cases analysis and/or member checking of the preliminary findings.

The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?

Response: We have included data from both results and discussion sections. Added: 'Regarding the findings, data from both, the results and discussion sections will be included'.

I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Response: Added. Please, refer to section “Reflexivity statement”.
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table below and highlighted changes in the text of the manuscript.

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?

Response: Our QES have included 25 studies providing qualitative data on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion from 14 different countries. Of these, some have high AOL rates, others not. This has emerged in our preliminary findings. For example, some women expected to be augmented during labour, while others did not anticipate an AOL and did not read/seek information about it. We feel that the large and varied dataset will ensure that variation rates of AOL will not negatively impact on our QES. Furthermore, assessing the quality of our review findings using CERQual and, in particular, the ‘adequacy and relevance’ components will further address any concern about variations in prevalence of AOL in different jurisdictions.

In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?

Response: Regarding the methodological quality appraisal, we agreed to use the different criteria as explained in the original article (Thomas et al. 2003). For example, regarding the “Reliability of the data collection tools” (F), we considered they met the criteria if the authors used a topic guide or they provided examples of the topics addressed during the interviews. For “Validity of the data collection tools” (G), any type of recording was considered sufficient. Regarding “Reliability of the data analysis” (H), we considered the criteria met if the more than one author participated in the data analysis and/or if the authors contacted an additional person with qualitative expertise to review the data analysis. We also considered the amount of data provided to support their findings. Regarding “Validity of the data analysis” (I), the criteria was met if the authors conducted negative cases analysis and/or member checking of the preliminary findings.

The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?

Response: We have included data from both results and discussion sections. Added: 'Regarding the findings, data from both, the results and discussion sections will be included'.

I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Response: Added. Please, refer to section “Reflexivity statement”.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

20 Apr 2022

Author Response
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table ... Continue reading
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table below and highlighted changes in the text of the manuscript.

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?

Response: Our QES have included 25 studies providing qualitative data on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion from 14 different countries. Of these, some have high AOL rates, others not. This has emerged in our preliminary findings. For example, some women expected to be augmented during labour, while others did not anticipate an AOL and did not read/seek information about it. We feel that the large and varied dataset will ensure that variation rates of AOL will not negatively impact on our QES. Furthermore, assessing the quality of our review findings using CERQual and, in particular, the ‘adequacy and relevance’ components will further address any concern about variations in prevalence of AOL in different jurisdictions.

In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?

Response: Regarding the methodological quality appraisal, we agreed to use the different criteria as explained in the original article (Thomas et al. 2003). For example, regarding the “Reliability of the data collection tools” (F), we considered they met the criteria if the authors used a topic guide or they provided examples of the topics addressed during the interviews. For “Validity of the data collection tools” (G), any type of recording was considered sufficient. Regarding “Reliability of the data analysis” (H), we considered the criteria met if the more than one author participated in the data analysis and/or if the authors contacted an additional person with qualitative expertise to review the data analysis. We also considered the amount of data provided to support their findings. Regarding “Validity of the data analysis” (I), the criteria was met if the authors conducted negative cases analysis and/or member checking of the preliminary findings.

The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?

Response: We have included data from both results and discussion sections. Added: 'Regarding the findings, data from both, the results and discussion sections will be included'.

I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Response: Added. Please, refer to section “Reflexivity statement”.
Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table below and highlighted changes in the text of the manuscript.

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?

Response: Our QES have included 25 studies providing qualitative data on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion from 14 different countries. Of these, some have high AOL rates, others not. This has emerged in our preliminary findings. For example, some women expected to be augmented during labour, while others did not anticipate an AOL and did not read/seek information about it. We feel that the large and varied dataset will ensure that variation rates of AOL will not negatively impact on our QES. Furthermore, assessing the quality of our review findings using CERQual and, in particular, the ‘adequacy and relevance’ components will further address any concern about variations in prevalence of AOL in different jurisdictions.

In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?

Response: Regarding the methodological quality appraisal, we agreed to use the different criteria as explained in the original article (Thomas et al. 2003). For example, regarding the “Reliability of the data collection tools” (F), we considered they met the criteria if the authors used a topic guide or they provided examples of the topics addressed during the interviews. For “Validity of the data collection tools” (G), any type of recording was considered sufficient. Regarding “Reliability of the data analysis” (H), we considered the criteria met if the more than one author participated in the data analysis and/or if the authors contacted an additional person with qualitative expertise to review the data analysis. We also considered the amount of data provided to support their findings. Regarding “Validity of the data analysis” (I), the criteria was met if the authors conducted negative cases analysis and/or member checking of the preliminary findings.

The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?

Response: We have included data from both results and discussion sections. Added: 'Regarding the findings, data from both, the results and discussion sections will be included'.

I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Response: Added. Please, refer to section “Reflexivity statement”.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Jan 2022

Claire Feeley, King's College London, London, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14678.r31296

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this timely and important qualitative systematic review regarding women's experiences of AOL. It is a very exciting piece of work and I look forward to reading the findings.

... Continue reading

Introduction:
- Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!
- Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.
- Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).
Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.
Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Midwifery practice, women's experiences of care, midwives supporting women outside of the guidelines, normal birth across the risk spectrum

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

20 Apr 2022

Author Response
Reviewer comment
Reply
- Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!
- Response: Yes, we
... Continue reading
Reviewer comment
Reply

Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!

Response: Yes, we agree. Typically might be more appropriate.

Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.

Response: Although we acknowledge the importance and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods for AOL, this QES will focus on AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion. Our intention for the full report is to include a paragraph about other non-pharmacological methods that have demonstrated to be effective in managing prolonged labour (i.e, water immersion).Previous research suggested a potential overuse in clinical practice. Further discussion will be included in the QES. Added:

[…] suggesting a potential misuse in clinical practice.

As briefly discussed in the protocol, probably one of the main contributory causes to this disparity is that there is no clear diagnosis criteria for labour dystocia.

[…] the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis.

Our preliminary findings also suggest the need to improve the indications for AOL. This will be also discussed in our QES.

Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).

Response: Yes, birth trauma is an important health problem that needs to be considered when talking about childbirth experiences. Added: 'Moreover, women with negative childbirth experiences are more vulnerable to developing serious mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (Ertan et al. 2021)'

Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.

Response: Added: 'We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature in thesis repositories (EThOS and DART-Europe) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The reference lists of studies identified for inclusion will also be reviewed'.

Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Response: Although the terms reliability and validity may be considered as quantitative terms, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative studies (Thomas et al. 2003). It assesses the studies through 12 criteria and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al. 2018, Smith et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021b)
Reviewer comment
Reply

Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!

Response: Yes, we agree. Typically might be more appropriate.

Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.

Response: Although we acknowledge the importance and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods for AOL, this QES will focus on AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion. Our intention for the full report is to include a paragraph about other non-pharmacological methods that have demonstrated to be effective in managing prolonged labour (i.e, water immersion).Previous research suggested a potential overuse in clinical practice. Further discussion will be included in the QES. Added:

[…] suggesting a potential misuse in clinical practice.

As briefly discussed in the protocol, probably one of the main contributory causes to this disparity is that there is no clear diagnosis criteria for labour dystocia.

[…] the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis.

Our preliminary findings also suggest the need to improve the indications for AOL. This will be also discussed in our QES.

Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).

Response: Yes, birth trauma is an important health problem that needs to be considered when talking about childbirth experiences. Added: 'Moreover, women with negative childbirth experiences are more vulnerable to developing serious mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (Ertan et al. 2021)'

Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.

Response: Added: 'We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature in thesis repositories (EThOS and DART-Europe) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The reference lists of studies identified for inclusion will also be reviewed'.

Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Response: Although the terms reliability and validity may be considered as quantitative terms, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative studies (Thomas et al. 2003). It assesses the studies through 12 criteria and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al. 2018, Smith et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021b)
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

20 Apr 2022

Author Response
Reviewer comment
Reply
- Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!
- Response: Yes, we
... Continue reading
Reviewer comment
Reply

Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!

Response: Yes, we agree. Typically might be more appropriate.

Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.

Response: Although we acknowledge the importance and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods for AOL, this QES will focus on AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion. Our intention for the full report is to include a paragraph about other non-pharmacological methods that have demonstrated to be effective in managing prolonged labour (i.e, water immersion).Previous research suggested a potential overuse in clinical practice. Further discussion will be included in the QES. Added:

[…] suggesting a potential misuse in clinical practice.

As briefly discussed in the protocol, probably one of the main contributory causes to this disparity is that there is no clear diagnosis criteria for labour dystocia.

[…] the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis.

Our preliminary findings also suggest the need to improve the indications for AOL. This will be also discussed in our QES.

Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).

Response: Yes, birth trauma is an important health problem that needs to be considered when talking about childbirth experiences. Added: 'Moreover, women with negative childbirth experiences are more vulnerable to developing serious mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (Ertan et al. 2021)'

Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.

Response: Added: 'We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature in thesis repositories (EThOS and DART-Europe) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The reference lists of studies identified for inclusion will also be reviewed'.

Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Response: Although the terms reliability and validity may be considered as quantitative terms, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative studies (Thomas et al. 2003). It assesses the studies through 12 criteria and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al. 2018, Smith et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021b)
Reviewer comment
Reply

Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!

Response: Yes, we agree. Typically might be more appropriate.

Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.

Response: Although we acknowledge the importance and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods for AOL, this QES will focus on AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion. Our intention for the full report is to include a paragraph about other non-pharmacological methods that have demonstrated to be effective in managing prolonged labour (i.e, water immersion).Previous research suggested a potential overuse in clinical practice. Further discussion will be included in the QES. Added:

[…] suggesting a potential misuse in clinical practice.

As briefly discussed in the protocol, probably one of the main contributory causes to this disparity is that there is no clear diagnosis criteria for labour dystocia.

[…] the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis.

Our preliminary findings also suggest the need to improve the indications for AOL. This will be also discussed in our QES.

Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).

Response: Yes, birth trauma is an important health problem that needs to be considered when talking about childbirth experiences. Added: 'Moreover, women with negative childbirth experiences are more vulnerable to developing serious mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (Ertan et al. 2021)'

Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.

Response: Added: 'We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature in thesis repositories (EThOS and DART-Europe) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The reference lists of studies identified for inclusion will also be reviewed'.

Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Response: Although the terms reliability and validity may be considered as quantitative terms, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative studies (Thomas et al. 2003). It assesses the studies through 12 criteria and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al. 2018, Smith et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021b)
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2021

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 20 Apr 22		read
Version 1 09 Dec 21	read	read

Claire Feeley, King's College London, London, UK
Linda Biesty, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

29 Views

27 Apr 2022 | for Version 2

Linda Biesty, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

29 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments to add. Wishing the team the best of luck with their QES. I am looking forward to reading the completed work.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

My research areas of interest lie in all aspects of midwifery and maternity care. My methodological areas of expertise are qualitative research methodologies and methods including qualitative evidence synthesis.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

47 Views

07 Feb 2022 | for Version 1

Linda Biesty, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

47 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

This is an incredibly important study and I am delighted to read the protocol. Some minor points of thought that the review team might consider:

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?
In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?
The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?
I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

Thank you for considering our protocol and giving us some comments and suggestions that will add to the quality of this QES. We have addressed each comment in the table below and highlighted changes in the text of the manuscript.

In the Introduction interesting information is provided in relation to the AOL ranges, variation across criteria, services etc. have the team considered how these variations may impact on their synthesis?
Response: Our QES have included 25 studies providing qualitative data on women’s views and experiences of AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion from 14 different countries. Of these, some have high AOL rates, others not. This has emerged in our preliminary findings. For example, some women expected to be augmented during labour, while others did not anticipate an AOL and did not read/seek information about it. We feel that the large and varied dataset will ensure that variation rates of AOL will not negatively impact on our QES. Furthermore, assessing the quality of our review findings using CERQual and, in particular, the ‘adequacy and relevance’ components will further address any concern about variations in prevalence of AOL in different jurisdictions.
In the assessment of methodological quality have the team considered how they will interpret Criteria R,G,H and I, given that the prompts of the criteria speak to reliability and validity?
Response: Regarding the methodological quality appraisal, we agreed to use the different criteria as explained in the original article (Thomas et al. 2003). For example, regarding the “Reliability of the data collection tools” (F), we considered they met the criteria if the authors used a topic guide or they provided examples of the topics addressed during the interviews. For “Validity of the data collection tools” (G), any type of recording was considered sufficient. Regarding “Reliability of the data analysis” (H), we considered the criteria met if the more than one author participated in the data analysis and/or if the authors contacted an additional person with qualitative expertise to review the data analysis. We also considered the amount of data provided to support their findings. Regarding “Validity of the data analysis” (I), the criteria was met if the authors conducted negative cases analysis and/or member checking of the preliminary findings.
The extraction of the "findings" - the team should indicate if they will include findings from findings / results sections of included studies, from discussion section or both?
Response: We have included data from both results and discussion sections. Added: 'Regarding the findings, data from both, the results and discussion sections will be included'.
I suggest that it is important that the team include a reflexive section in their protocol to highlight how their professional and research backgrounds will influence their engagement with all methods of this QES.
Response: Added. Please, refer to section “Reflexivity statement”.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

56 Views

31 Jan 2022 | for Version 1

Claire Feeley, King's College London, London, UK

56 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Introduction:
- Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!
- Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.
- Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).
Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.
Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Midwifery practice, women's experiences of care, midwives supporting women outside of the guidelines, normal birth across the risk spectrum

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Apr 2022

Silvia Alòs Pereñíguez, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland

Reviewer comment
Reply

Introduction: Wouldn't agree 'traditionally' is the right term, maybe typically? Although in the US they are known for AOL with membranes intact...!
Response: Yes, we agree. Typically might be more appropriate.
Need some further acknowledgement/discussion around the huge variation of rates of AOL, why this might be, what does the literature say? That you are focusing on spontaneous labor, this is very important to consider. Birth setting/planned place of birth and where labor is mostly experienced for example will influence the rates of synthesis. Perhaps a minor mention of non-pharma methods e.g. water immersion reduces transfer rates from homebirth/FMU, which haven't had much look in via research? A great opportunity to critique these statistics.
Response: Although we acknowledge the importance and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods for AOL, this QES will focus on AOL with synthetic oxytocin infusion. Our intention for the full report is to include a paragraph about other non-pharmacological methods that have demonstrated to be effective in managing prolonged labour (i.e, water immersion).Previous research suggested a potential overuse in clinical practice. Further discussion will be included in the QES. Added:
- […] suggesting a potential misuse in clinical practice.
- As briefly discussed in the protocol, probably one of the main contributory causes to this disparity is that there is no clear diagnosis criteria for labour dystocia.
- […] the lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria for labour dystocia has brought into question the robustness of its diagnosis.
- Our preliminary findings also suggest the need to improve the indications for AOL. This will be also discussed in our QES.
Negative experiences may also mean traumatic experiences/PTSD a point that asserts the importance of getting labor care right so would add this in. (It also influences women to opt out of maternity care altogether, a key point for maternity services to consider).
Response: Yes, birth trauma is an important health problem that needs to be considered when talking about childbirth experiences. Added: 'Moreover, women with negative childbirth experiences are more vulnerable to developing serious mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (Ertan et al. 2021)'
Search strategy: What sort of grey literature, be specific.
Response: Added: 'We will expand our search by additionally searching the grey literature in thesis repositories (EThOS and DART-Europe) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The reference lists of studies identified for inclusion will also be reviewed'.
Quality appraisal: Not convinced this tool is appropriate for qualitative papers, much debate out there appraising quality in qualitative reviews but I personally agree it should be done. However, this tool reads as a quant tool- reliability/validity are positivist terms, you want to look for trustworthiness. Strongly suggest changing this.
Response: Although the terms reliability and validity may be considered as quantitative terms, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and Co-ordinating Centre’s appraisal tool was designed specifically for synthesising qualitative studies (Thomas et al. 2003). It assesses the studies through 12 criteria and has been successfully used in previous QES on maternal health (Panda et al. 2018, Smith et al. 2021a, Smith et al. 2021b)

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Alòs-Pereñíguez S A, O’Malley D, Daly D, et al.: Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion. A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2QYJC

[2] Booth A, Lewin S, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, et al.: Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(1): 33–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG: Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (6): CD007123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–1443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] Daly D, Minnie KCS, Blignaut A, et al.: How much synthetic oxytocin is infused during labour? A review and analysis of regimens used in 12 countries. PLoS One. 2020; 15(7): e0227941. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] Fuglenes D, Aas E, Botten G, et al.: Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(1): 45.e41–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] Helbig S, Petersen A, Sitter E, et al.: Inter-institutional variations in oxytocin augmentation during labour in German university hospitals: a national survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1): 238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] Johansson C, Finnbogadóttir H: First-time mothers’ satisfaction with their birth experience – a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2019; 79: 102540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] Karaçam Z, Walsh D, Bugg GJ: Evolving understanding and treatment of labour dystocia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182: 123–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Kenyon S, Tokumasu H, Dowswell T, et al.: High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (7): CD007201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Khajehei M, Doherty M: Women's experience of their sexual function during pregnancy and after childbirth: a qualitative survey. Br J Midwifery. 2018; 26(5): 318–328. Publisher Full Text

[15] Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D: 'Not enough people to look after you': An exploration of women's experiences of childbirth in the Republic of Ireland. Midwifery. 2012; 28(1): 98–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci. 2018a; 13(Suppl 1): 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018b; 13(Suppl 1): 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] Majid U, Vanstone M: Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools. Qual Health Res. 2018; 28(13): 2115–2131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, et al.: Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet. 2016; 388(10056): 2176–2192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] Nahaee J, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Abbas-Alizadeh F, et al.: Pre- and during-labour predictors of low birth satisfaction among Iranian women: a prospective analytical study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1): 408. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] Neal JL, Lowe NK, Schorn MN, et al.: Labor Dystocia: A Common Approach to Diagnosis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015a; 60(5): 499–509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] Neal JL, Ryan SL, Lowe NK, et al.: Labor Dystocia: Uses of Related Nomenclature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015b; 60(5): 485–498. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al.: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1): 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Diverse definitions of prolonged labour and its consequences with sometimes subsequent inappropriate treatment. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] Nystedt A, Hildingsson I: Women's and men's negative experience of child birth-A cross-sectional survey. Women Birth. 2018; 31(2): 103–109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Oladapo OT, Diaz V, Bonet M, et al.: Cervical dilatation patterns of 'low-risk' women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018; 125(8): 944–954. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] Panda S, Begley C, Daly D: Clinicians' views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. PLoS One. 2018; 13(7): e0200941. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] Riddell CA, Hutcheon JA, Strumpf EC, et al.: Inter-institutional Variation in Use of Caesarean Delivery for Labour Dystocia. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017; 39(11): 988–995. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, van den Akker T, Rydahl E, et al.: Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: A multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(5): e1003103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, Zondag DC, Nieuwenhuijze M, et al.: Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] Smith V, Muldoon K, Brady V, et al.: Assessing fetal movements in pregnancy: A qualitative evidence synthesis of women's views, perspectives and experiences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 197. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] Suwanrath C, Chunuan S, Matemanosak P, et al.: Why do pregnant women prefer cesarean birth? A qualitative study in a tertiary care center in Southern Thailand. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] Thomas J, Harden A: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] Thomas J, Sutcliffe K, Harden A, et al.: Children and healthy eating: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, 2003. Reference Source

[37] WHO: WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva, 2018. Reference Source

[38] World Health Organization (WHO): WHO Recommendations for Augmentation of Labour. Geneva, 2014. Reference Source

Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Protocol

Inclusion criteria

Table 1. Search terms.

Search strategy and study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Table 2. Criteria for methodological quality assessment (Thomas et al., 2003).

Data extraction and synthesis

Assessing confidence in the findings

Table 3. GRADE-CERQual assessment (Lewin et al., 2018b).

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Women’s views and experiences of augmentation of labour with synthetic oxytocin infusion: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Protocol

Inclusion criteria

Table 1. Search terms.

Search strategy and study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Table 2. Criteria for methodological quality assessment (Thomas et al., 2003).

Data extraction and synthesis

Assessing confidence in the findings

Table 3. GRADE-CERQual assessment (Lewin et al., 2018b).

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!