ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivations for and experience with labor induction at 39 weeks in women with obesity-A qualitative study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- Experiences of Maternal Autonomy in Childbirth and Perinatal Care in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Review
- Decision-Making and Knowledge Around Inductions of Labor: A Survey Study in Ireland.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Concordance of Self-Reported Obstetric Outcomes With Electronic Health Record Documentation: A Secondary Analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study Monitoring Mothers-To-Be.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- The Childbirth Experience Survey (CBEX): An Analysis of Qualitative Survey data.Maternal and child health journal · 2025Article
- Role of Cervical Elastography in Predicting Progression to Active Phase in Labor Induction in Term Nulliparous Women.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Experience of Labour and Childbirth in a Sample of Portuguese Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lived experiences of women during induction of labour at a tertiary hospital in Ghana: A qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- A prolonged latent phase: An early career in oxytocin during birth.Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2023Article
- Results of Induction of Labor with Prostaglandins E1 and E2 (The RIPE Study): A Real-World Data Analysis of Obstetrical Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Pharmacological Induction of Labor with Vaginal Inserts.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Observational
- Labor Induction with Intravaginal Misoprostol versus Spontaneous Labor: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rate of induction of labor in the U.S. has risen from 9.6% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2018, including 31.7% of first-time births. Recent studies that have examined inductions have been small qualitative studies or relied on either medical records or administrative data. This study examines induction from the perspective of those women who experienced it, with a particular focus on the prevalence and predictors of inductions for nonmedical indications, women's experience of pressure to induce labor and the relationship between the attempt to medically initiate labor and cesarean section.
methodsStudy data are drawn from the 2119 respondents to the Listening to Mothers in California survey who were planning to have a vaginal birth in 2016. Mothers were asked if there had been an attempt to medically initiate labor, if it actually started labor, if they felt pressured to have the induction, if they had a cesarean and the reason for the induction. Reasons for induction were classified as either medically indicated or elective.
resultsAlmost half (47%) of our respondents indicated an attempt was made to medically induce their labor, and 71% of those attempts initiated labor. More than a third of the attempts (37%) were elective. Attempted induction overall was most strongly associated with giving birth at 41+ weeks (aOR 3.28; 95% C.I. 2.21-4.87). Elective inductions were more likely among multiparous mothers and in pregnancies at 39 or 40 weeks. The perception of being pressured to have labor induced was related to higher levels of education, maternal preference for less medical intervention in birth, having an obstetrician compared to a midwife and gestational ages of 41+ weeks. Cesarean birth was more likely in the case of overall induction (aOR 1.51; 95% C.I. 1.11-2.07) and especially following a failed attempt at labor induction (aOR 4.50; 95% C.I. 2.93-6.90).
conclusionClinicians counselling mothers concerning the need for labor induction should be aware of mothers' perceptions about birth and engage in true shared decision making in order to avoid the maternal perception of being pressured into labor induction.
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.