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

Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session

CME Credit Offered

Abstract Award

Recording available 2/16-5/2

AIUM Credit

Foundation Awardee

Poster Icons

Abstract Award

Foundation Awardee

Poster Session 4

Category: Labor

Poster Session 4

(1115) Exploring Patient Perspectives in the The PROMMO (Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: Misoprostol vs Oxytocin) Study

Thursday, February 12, 2026

3:30 PM - 5:00 PM

Submitting Author and Presenting Author(s)

Jacquelyn H. Adams, MD, MSCI

Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Coauthor(s)

AG

Amy Godecker, PhD

Statistician
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Kara K. Hoppe, DO, PhD (she/her/hers)

Associate Professor
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Objective:
Prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) is common, yet optimal induction methods remain debated. We conducted a secondary analysis of the PROMMO trial which compared IV oxytocin (OT) to oral misoprostol (MP) for labor induction after PROM to examine participant experience and satisfaction with their allocated induction agent.

Study Design:
This is a planned secondary analysis of a PROMMO, a randomized control trial in a single institution from 08/2020 to 05/2024. Study participants were allocated to oral MP or IV OT. Inclusion criteria included confirmed PROM, an unfavorable modified Bishop score (< 7), gestational age 34w0d and 41w6d, and ability to consent in Spanish or English. We evaluated satisfaction using a modified 10-item version of the Labor Agentry Scale and six unique questions with induction agent. All items were scored from 1 to 7, with 7 being the most positive. Statistical analysis included chi-square or Fisher's exact tests and t-test or Wilcoxon-Rank Sum as appropriate.

Results:

Of 134 trial participants, 122 completed postpartum surveys. The MP group included 60 and the OT group 62 participants. Maternal characteristics did not differ between groups. A Chronbach’s alpha of 0.83 was calculated for the Labor Agentry Scale. Both groups had high median scores on the Labor Agentry Scale at 57/70 [IQR 50, 59.5] for MP and 57/70 [IQR 50, 61] for OT. There was no difference in patient satisfaction with method for MP or OT (7 [IQR 5,7 ] v 6 [IQR 4,7] p = 0.121). There was also no difference in feelings of convenience for MP or OT (7 [IQR 4,7 ] v 6 [IQR 4,7] p = 0.376). Both groups were likely to recommend their induction agent with high median scores for MP and OT (6 [IQR 4,7 ] v 6 [IQR 4,7] p = 0.974).

Conclusion:
Participants in both the MP and OT groups had high median score on the modified Labor Agentry Scale and unique questions on patient satisfaction. The results of this survey demonstrate the patient experience with both MP and OT are satisfying for patients requiring labor induction in the setting of PROM.