Literature DB >> 12100818

Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies.

William F Rayburn1, Jun Zhang.   

Abstract

The rate of labor induction nationwide increased gradually from 9.5% to 19.4% between 1990 and 1998. Reasons for this doubling of inductions relate to widespread availability of cervical ripening agents, pressure from patients, conveniences to physicians, and litigious constraints. The increase in medically indicated inductions was slower than the overall increase, suggesting that induction for marginal or elective reasons has risen more rapidly. Data to support or refute the benefits of marginal or elective inductions are limited. Many trials of inductions for marginal indications are either nonexistent or retrospective with small sample sizes, thereby limiting definitive conclusions. Until prospective clinical trials can better validate reasons for the liberal use of labor induction, it would seem prudent to maintain a cautious approach, especially among nulliparous women. Strategies are proposed for developing evidence-based guidelines to reduce the presumed increase in health care costs, risk of cesarean delivery for nulliparas, and overscheduling in labor and delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12100818     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02047-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  27 in total

1.  Medicaid coverage and medical interventions during pregnancy.

Authors:  Leo Turcotte; John Robst; Solomon Polachek
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2005-09

2.  Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America.

Authors:  Gláucia Virgínia Guerra; José Guilherme Cecatti; João Paulo Souza; Aníbal Faúndes; Sirlei Siani Morais; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Renato Passini; Mary Angela Parpinelli; Guillermo Carroli
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 9.408

3.  Induction of Labour: Change of Method and its Effects.

Authors:  S Kehl; C Weiss; U Dammer; E Raabe; S Burghaus; J Heimrich; J Hackl; M Winkler; M W Beckmann; F Faschingbauer
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.915

4.  Patient-Perceived Pressure from Clinicians for Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery: A Population-Based Survey of U.S. Women.

Authors:  Judy Jou; Katy B Kozhimannil; Pamela Jo Johnson; Carol Sakala
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Shortening the induction delivery interval with prostaglandins: a randomized controlled trial of solo or in combination.

Authors:  Rajiv Mahendru; Shweta Yadav
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2011-06-01

Review 6.  Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings.

Authors:  Therese Dowswell; Anthony J Kelly; Stefania Livio; Jane E Norman; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-08-04

7.  Epidemiologic considerations: scope of problem and disparity concerns.

Authors:  Darios Getahun
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.190

Review 8.  Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: what does the evidence tell us?

Authors:  Jennifer Moore; Lisa Kane Low
Journal:  J Perinat Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.638

9.  The impact of changes in preterm birth among twins on stillbirth and infant mortality in the United States.

Authors:  D Getahun; K Demissie; S W Marcella; G G Rhoads
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 10.  Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.

Authors:  Joshua P Vogel; Alfred O Osoti; Anthony J Kelly; Stefania Livio; Jane E Norman; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-09-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.