ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016
A retrospective population-based study of induction of labour trends and associated factors among aboriginal and non-aboriginal mothers in the northern territory between 2001 and 2012.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labour (IOL) has become more common among many populations, but the trends and drivers of IOL in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia are not known. This study investigated trends in IOL and associated factors among NT Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal mothers between 2001 and 2012.
methodsA retrospective analysis of all NT resident women who birthed in the NT between 2001 and 2012 at ≥32 weeks gestation. Demographic, medical and obstetric data were obtained from the NT Midwives' Collection. The prevalence of IOL was calculated by Aboriginal status and parity of the mother and year of birth. The prevalence of each main indication for induction among women was compared for 2001-2003 and 2010-2012. Linear and logistic regression was used to test for association between predictive factors and IOL in bivariate and multivariate analysis, separately for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal mothers.
resultsA total of 42,765 eligible births between 2001 and 2012 were included. IOL was less common for Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal mothers in 2001 (18.0 % and 25.1 %, respectively), but increased to be similar to non-Aboriginal mothers in 2012 (22.6 % and 24.8 %, respectively). Aboriginal primiparous mothers demonstrated the greatest increase in IOL. The most common indication for IOL for both groups was post-dates, which changed little over time. Medical and obstetric complications were more common for Aboriginal mothers except late-term pregnancy. Prevalence of diabetes in pregnancy increased considerably among both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal mothers, but was responsible for only a small proportion of IOLs. Increasing prevalence of risk factors did not explain the increased IOL prevalence for Aboriginal mothers.
conclusionsIOL is now as common for Aboriginal as non-Aboriginal mothers, though their demographic, medical and obstetric profiles are markedly different. Medical indications did not explain the recent increase in IOL among Aboriginal mothers; changes in maternal or clinical decision-making may have been involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.