Health Related Quality of Life Post Labour Induction With Misoprostol Versus Dinoprostone at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A Cross Sectional Study

Main Article Content

Jonas Kagwisage
Belinda S Balandya
Andrea B Pembe
Phares GM Mujinja


Background: Labour induction using Misoprostol or Dinoprostone results to similar maternal and foetal clinical outcomes. However, the clinical outcome measures have rarely been combined with effects of interventions on patients’ health related quality of life.
This study aimed to assess postpartum health related quality of life of parturient after labour induction with vaginal administration of misoprostol versus dinoprostone.
Methods: This was a comparative cross sectional study in which pregnant women who underwent labour induction with misoprostol and dinoprostone during the study period were included. Data were collected within 24 hours post-delivery using the 36 item short form health survey questionnaire which consists of 24 attributes distributed in five domains including bodily pains and physical performance three attributes each, mental health seven attributes, general health two attributes, social functioning six attributes and three attributes for labour induction satisfaction. We first estimated scores of all attributes in each domain using Likert scales and then the domain scores were converted into a 0 to 100 scales to express in percentage of total scores. Quality of life was compared in the two study groups using the independent samples T Test. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for marital status, gravidity, parity, baseline cervical status, time interval from induction to delivery and mode of delivery.
Results: Women who received misoprostol reported better health related quality of life compared to those who received dinoprostone (mean score 92.89 vs. 87.25;P<.00). Misoprostol group had significantly higher scores in all domains of health related quality of life; reduced bodily pain (93.76 vs. 84.19;P<.00), physical performance (83.64 vs. 73.58;P<.00), mental health (96.40 vs. 93.55 P<.00), general health (93.78 vs. 90.23;P=.01), social functioning (94.81 vs. 91.25;P<.00) and satisfaction perceptions (94.96 vs. 90.71;P<.00).
Conclusion: Health related quality of life information is of particular value in routine care of natal and postnatal mothers. Current and updated guidelines should address the impacts of labour induction interventions on maternal health related quality of life, and encourage the use of quality of life information in provision of holistic natal and postnatal care services. Clinical trials are recommended to determine the effectiveness of labour induction with either of the two methods and address the historical adverse outcomes associated to the use of misoprostol.

Article Details

Original Articles