ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
The impact of implementing a standardized protocol for labor induction on obstetric disparities: Secondary analysis of a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Prior retrospective data demonstrated that standardization of labor induction may reduce racial disparities in cesarean delivery and morbidity. Here, we aimed to determine the impact of prospectively implementing an induction protocol on racially disparate outcomes. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial comparing 2 years before (PRE) and 2 years after (POST) implementation of a standardized induction protocol at two labor units (2018 to 2022). The protocol had eight components and recommended active induction management, frequent cervical exams, and amniotomy by first exam ≥4 cm. All singleton pregnancies ≥37 weeks with intact membranes requiring cervical ripening were eligible; prior cesarean delivery was excluded. Data were collected via individual chart review. This analysis included only those with self-identified race, divided into Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), and white. Poisson regression with interaction terms evaluated the protocol's impact on disparities in cesarean delivery and morbidity. Fidelity to the protocol was defined as adherence to ≥75% of the eight protocol components. Results: A total of 8386 patients were included (PRE = 4167; POST = 4219); 59.3% were identified as BIPOC. BIPOC patients differed in delivery site, insurance, body mass index, parity, age, diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension, gestational age, and induction indication. BIPOC patients were more likely to undergo cesarean in the PRE (aRR 1.36[1.18-1.58]) period, and remained more likely to undergo cesarean POST-implementation (aRR 1.55[1.33-1.70]), even when controlling for differences between groups. Similarly, maternal morbidity was greater among BIPOC patients PRE-implementation (aRR 1.25[1.07-1.46]) and remained greater among BIPOC patients POST-implementation (aRR 1.34[1.14-1.58]). There was no difference by race/ethnic group in neonatal morbidity in either PRE or POST. Finally, the protocol was implemented similarly by BIPOC versus white. Conclusion: Despite uniform implementation of a standardized induction protocol across race/ethnic groups, this intervention did not mitigate observed racial disparities in cesarean or maternal morbidity.
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.