Literature DB >> 12911799

Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: what is the difference?

J Christopher Glantz1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Labor induction rates in the United States rose from 9.0 percent in 1989 to 20.5 percent in 2001, but reasons for the increase are poorly defined. A birth database from a region of upstate New York, including 31,352 deliveries from 1998 through 1999, was used to determine the degree of variation of labor induction rates among hospitals and practitioners.
METHODS: Total and elective labor induction rates were calculated for 16 hospitals and individual staff, and then evaluated using chi-square testing and regression.
RESULTS: Using all laboring women as the denominator, the regional labor induction rate was 20.8 percent; of these inductions, 25 percent had no apparent medical indication. Total induction rates and percent of elective inductions that were elective varied significantly among hospitals (10%-39% and 12%-55%, respectively, p<0.0001) and among practitioners within hospitals (7%-48% and 3%-76%, respectively, p<0.0001). Hospitals varied in size, risk status, and cesarean section rates, but these factors did not correlate with induction rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Labor induction rates are highly variable among and within hospitals. Delivery volume, population risk status, and differences in cesarean section rates did not explain this variation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12911799     DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2003.00241.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  12 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Elective delivery before 39 weeks: the risk of infant admission to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Authors:  Claire A Hoffmire; Patricia R Chess; Taha Ben Saad; J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2012-07

4.  Regional variation in late preterm births in North Carolina.

Authors:  Sofia R Aliaga; P Brian Smith; Wayne A Price; Thomas S Ivester; Kim Boggess; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart; Martin J McCaffrey; Matthew M Laughon
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-01

5.  Normal birth.

Authors:  Ione Brunt
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2005

Review 6.  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

7.  Center Variation in the Delivery of Indicated Late Preterm Births.

Authors:  Sofia Aliaga; Jun Zhang; D Leann Long; Amy H Herring; Matthew Laughon; Kim Boggess; Uma M Reddy; Katherine Laughon Grantz
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Sonographically accessed funneling of the uterine cervix as a predictor of successful labor induction.

Authors:  Seon Hwa Chung; Mi Kyung Kong; Eui Hyeok Kim; Sang Won Han
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2015-05-19

9.  Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference?

Authors:  Cristina Teixeira; Sofia Correia; Henrique Barros
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2013-05-28

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.