Literature DB >> 34047405

Induction of labor or expectant management? Birth outcomes for nulliparous individuals choosing midwifery care.

Elise N Erickson1, Joanne M Bailey1, Shanti D Colo1, Nicole S Carlson1, Ellen L Tilden1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor (IOL) has been studied as a strategy to reduce rates of cesarean birth (CB). Midwifery care models are also associated with lower CB rates, even considering that midwives perform fewer IOLs. In this study, we examined childbirth outcomes among individuals undergoing IOL in certified nurse-midwifery (CNM) care as compared to two categories of expectant management (EM).
METHODS: Data were from two CNM practices in the United States (2007-2018). The sample was limited to term nulliparous, nondiabetic, singleton, vertex pregnancies. Individuals having an IOL in each week of gestation (37th, 38th, etc) were compared with those having EM. Two methods for defining EM were considered as each method when used alone limits interpretation. Inclusive EM included all births starting in the same week as IOL. The exclusive EM group was comprised of all births occurring in the next gestational age week relative to the IOL cases (ie, 39th week IOL versus all births occurring at 40 weeks or later). Adjusted regression models were used to examine differences in CB by IOL versus EM (inclusive or exclusive) at each week of gestation.
RESULTS: Among 4057 CNM-attended pregnancies, the overall rate of IOL was 28.9% (95% CI 27.5%-30.3%) and CB was 19.4% (95% CI 18.1%-20.6%). Most IOLs involved obstetric indications. CB rates did not differ by IOL versus inclusive EM when performed between 37 and 40 weeks, though post hoc power calculations indicate these comparisons were low-powered. In multivarable models, IOL in the 40th week was associated with lower odds for CB versus exclusive EM definition (ie, births occurring at 41 0/7 weeks or later, OR (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.36-0.90)). This finding is explained by the large increase in CB rates after IOL during the 41st week (34.3%, up from 21.9% in the 40th week). Furthermore, the adjusted odds for CB in the 41st week were 55% higher relative to inclusive EM (all labors 41st week and later), OR (95% CI) = 1.55(1.11-2.15). Neonatal outcomes (aside from macrosomia) did not differ by IOL/EM at any gestational age. DISCUSSION: Outcomes for nulliparous individuals having IOL or EM in the context of a midwifery model of care include low overall use of CB and low frequency of IOL before 41 weeks. In this model, IOL in the 40th week may lower CB odds, especially in comparison to those who do not have spontaneous labor and later undergo an IOL in the 41st week.
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cesarean birth; labor induction; midwifery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34047405      PMCID: PMC9123647          DOI: 10.1111/birt.12560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.081


  28 in total

1.  Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  William A Grobman; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Supporting healthy and normal physiologic childbirth: a consensus statement by the American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, and the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.388

3.  Relationship Between Hospital-Level Percentage of Midwife-Attended Births and Obstetric Procedure Utilization.

Authors:  Laura Attanasio; Katy B Kozhimannil
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.388

4.  Childbirth Fear: Relation to Birth and Care Provider Preferences.

Authors:  Kathrin Stoll; Nichole Fairbrother; Dana S Thordarson
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 2.388

5.  Assessing Maternal and Fetal Risks Associated with Prolonged Induction of Labor.

Authors:  Jourdan E Triebwasser; Jamie VanArtsdalen; Emily K Kobernik; Kristian Seiler; Elizabeth S Langen
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Term labor induction compared with expectant management.

Authors:  J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Valentino De Vivo; Luigi Carbone; Gabriele Saccone; Giulia Magoga; Generoso De Vivo; Mariavittoria Locci; Fulvio Zullo; Vincenzo Berghella
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  Committee Opinion No. 687: Approaches to Limit Intervention During Labor and Birth.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Association between provider type and cesarean birth in healthy nulliparous laboring women: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Nicole S Carlson; Elizabeth J Corwin; Teri L Hernandez; Elizabeth Holt; Nancy K Lowe; K Joseph Hurt
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.689

Review 10.  Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Authors:  Jane Sandall; Hora Soltani; Simon Gates; Andrew Shennan; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-28
View more
  2 in total

1.  Maternal Morbidity Predicted by an Intersectional Social Determinants of Health Phenotype: A Secondary Analysis of the NuMoM2b Dataset.

Authors:  Elise N Erickson; Nicole S Carlson
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 2.  American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor.

Authors:  Nicole Smith Carlson; Alexis Dunn Amore; Jessica Ann Ellis; Katie Page; Robyn Schafer
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 2.891

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.