Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2018 Jul;8(3):e184-e191.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1669409. Epub 2018 Sep 14.

Uterine Monitoring Techniques from Patients' and Users' Perspectives

Kirsten M J Thijssen  1   2 , Marion W C Vlemminx  1   2 , Michelle E M H Westerhuis  1 , Jeanne P Dieleman  3 , M Beatrijs Van der Hout-Van der Jagt  1   2 , S Guid Oei  1   2
Affiliations
Case Reports

Uterine Monitoring Techniques from Patients' and Users' Perspectives

Kirsten M J Thijssen et al. AJP Rep. 2018 Jul.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate preferences from patients and users on 3 uterine monitoring techniques, during labor. Study Design Women in term labor were simultaneously monitored with the intrauterine pressure catheter, the external tocodynamometer, and the electrohysterograph. Postpartum, these women filled out a questionnaire evaluating their preferences and important aspects. Nurses completed a questionnaire evaluating users' preferences. Results Of all 52 participating women, 80.8% preferred the electrohysterograph, 17.3% the intrauterine pressure catheter and 1.9% the external tocodynamometer. For these women, the electrohysterograph scored best regarding application and presence during labor ( p < 0.001). Most important aspects were "least likely to harm" and "least discomfort". Of 57 nurses, 40.4% preferred the electrohysterograph, 35.1% the external tocodynamometer, and 24.6% had no preference, or replied that their preference is subject to situation and patient. Conclusion Patients prefer the electrohysterograph over the external tocodynamometer and the intrauterine pressure catheter, while healthcare providers report ambiguous results.

Keywords: cardiotocography (MeSH); electrohysterograph; external tocodynamometer; intrauterine pressure catheter; patient preference (MeSH); user preference; uterine contraction (MeSH); uterine monitoring (MeSH).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest The study has been financially supported by the Dutch Foundation “Stichting De Weijerhorst” and the Horizon2020 grant, the European Framework Program for Research and Innovation (Project number 719500). Author S.G.O. initiated the scientific research from Nemo Healthcare and from where the described EHG device have originated. There are no financial relationships between Nemo Healthcare and any of the authors.

References

    1. Bakker J JH, Janssen P F, van Halem Ket al.Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour(Review)Cochrane Database Syst Rev 201308CD006947. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bakker J J, Verhoeven C J, Janssen P F et al.Outcomes after internal versus external tocodynamometry for monitoring labor. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(04):306–313. - PubMed
    1. Euliano T Y, Nguyen M T, Darmanjian S et al.Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(01):660–6.6E7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hadar E, Biron-Shental T, Gavish O, Raban O, Yogev Y. A comparison between electrical uterine monitor, tocodynamometer and intra uterine pressure catheter for uterine activity in labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(12):1367–1374. - PubMed
    1. Vlemminx M WC, Thijssen K MJ, Bajlekov G I, Dieleman J P, Van Der Hout-Van Der Jagt M B, Oei S G. Electrohysterography for uterine monitoring during term labour compared to external tocodynamometry and intra-uterine pressure catheter. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;215:197–205. - PubMed

Publication types