ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
Outcomes for Labor Induction Compared With Expectant Management Among Women Receiving Hospital-Based, Midwifery-Led Care.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUse of labor induction has increased rapidly for medical and nonmedical reasons, raising questions about its impact on cesarean birth rates. With growing incidence of elective induction of labor (IOL) at 39 weeks, uncertainty remains about how care practices associated with IOL influence outcomes. Observational studies have reported varied cesarean birth rates following IOL. This issue is particularly relevant for midwives, who prioritize physiologic labor and recognize benefits of spontaneous labor in achieving vaginal birth. This study evaluated cesarean birth rates after labor induction in midwifery-led practice settings.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study (2017-2023) of term births (N = 7345) with midwifery-led intrapartum care in 4 practice groups across 3 hospitals. Outcomes were stratified by parity and gestational age. We compared cesarean birth rates between labor induction and expectant management (EM) for each week of gestation, replicating prior methodology. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for cesarean following IOL, adjusting for relevant covariates.
resultsThe overall cesarean birth rate was 10.7%; the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean birth rate was 18.4%. Labor induction occurred in 28.8% of births. Cesarean birth rates following IOL ranged from 10.5% at 39 weeks to 31.1% at 42 weeks. No significant differences in cesarean birth rates were observed between IOL and EM groups across gestational ages in adjusted analyses. Secondary outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar scores, and neonatal intensive care unit admission showed no significant differences across groups. Time from admission to birth was significantly longer following IOL, averaging 31.5 compared with 12.6 hours for spontaneous labor at 37 weeks. DISCUSSION: Among patients receiving exclusive midwifery care, labor induction did not increase cesarean birth rates. Findings suggest that clinical context, including midwifery-led care and collaborative practice environments, may influence outcomes. Further research is needed to explore impact of IOL practices on risks for cesarean birth.
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.