Skip to main content
SMFM 2026 Pregnancy Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Additional registration fee required
Additional registration fee required
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
CME Credit Offered
CME Credit Offered
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Recording available 2/16-5/2
Recording available 2/16-5/2
AIUM Credit
AIUM Credit
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee
Poster Icons
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee

Poster Session 4

Category: Labor

Poster Session 4

(1232) Sources of information for foley balloon use during induction of labor impacts its use

Thursday, February 12, 2026
3:30 PM - 5:00 PM  
Objective:
Patients presenting to the labor and delivery (L&D) unit often have strong opinions about using a foley balloon (FB) for induction of labor (IOL) due to concern for significant discomfort. This study examines what sources shape patient perceptions of FB use and how these perceptions influence FB utilization.

Study Design:
Patients ≥ 18 years old presenting for IOL with intact membranes were surveyed at the start of induction prior to FB placement. The survey asked whether patients had heard of a FB before, where they heard about it, and whether the sources portrayed it positively or negatively.

Results:
Over a 2-month period, 366 patients underwent an IOL, 183 (50%) completed the survey. Of these, 95 (52.9%) underwent FB placement. Most (72.1%) had heard of a FB and the main information sources included obstetric providers (56.1%), social media/internet (43.2%), and family/friends (39.4%) (Figure 1). Of those reporting a perspective, positive views were most common among those citing obstetric providers (88.5%) and midwifes/doulas (100%), compared to social media/internet (8.7%) and family/friends (25%). FB use was similar regardless of prior awareness (51.5% vs. 52.9%). Patients citing obstetric providers had higher FB use compared to those citing social media (56.7% vs. 49.1%). This difference increased when comparing FB use in those citing obstetric providers without social media/internet vs. social media/internet without obstetric providers (55.8% vs. 38.5%).

Conclusion:
Obstetric providers, social media/internet, and family/friend are the most common sources of FB information. Social media/internet is associated with negative perceptions and decreased FB use, while obstetric providers are linked to positive views and increased use.  These findings underscore the critical role obstetric providers play in promoting evidence-based care, given the known benefits of a FB for IOL.