ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Standardization of labor induction management: A mixed-methods evaluation of the clinician perspective.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Standardizing labor induction (IOL) practices may reduce cesarean delivery rates and improve obstetric disparities. Such labor induction protocols focus on active management with recommendations for frequent cervical exams, early amniotomy, and intervention when no cervical change is made (e.g., oxytocin or intrauterine pressure catheter). Here, we aimed to characterize the clinician perspective on the feasibility and acceptability of each of these components of a standardized labor induction protocol to improve implementation of standardized labor induction practices. Methods: This sequential mixed-methods study first surveyed clinicians after implementation of a standardized labor induction protocol at two sites in 2021. We used the four-question validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM; total 4-20) as well as a single acceptability item (1-5) for each of eight specific protocol components. Total AIM scores were grouped into tertiles. Clinicians in the top ("High" Acceptability) and bottom ("Low" Acceptability) tertiles were purposively sampled to participate in a semi-structured interview. Topics included (1) acceptability of protocol components, (2) barriers/facilitators to adherence, and (3) strategies for overcoming barriers. Interviews were coded using an integrated approach with high inter-rater reliability ( Results: A total of 104 clinicians (57 physicians, 43 RNs, 4 CNMs) completed the survey. Median total AIM score was 15/20 [IQR 12-19]. Protocol components with the highest scores on the individual acceptability item focused on not continuing "futile" cervical ripening, as well as interventions for active labor dystocia. Components with low acceptability included frequent cervical exams and early amniotomy. A total of 24 clinicians were interviewed (12 "High" and 12 "Low" Acceptability). Clinicians described barriers to implementation of less acceptable components of the protocol, including staff/time constraints, best-practice disagreements, and concerns around patient satisfaction. Clinicians recommended more education around the protocol's safety/efficacy and communication about anticipated labor induction steps to overcome these barriers. Conclusion: This work describes the clinician perspective on specific labor induction interventions and provides concrete recommendations to overcome implementation barriers of a standardized labor induction protocol.
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.