Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0208098.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208098. eCollection 2018.

Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study

Malin Dögl et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to assess indications for induction and describe the characteristics and delivery outcome in medical compared to non-medical/elective inductions. During a three-month period, 1663 term inductions were registered in 24 delivery units in Norway. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation at gestational age 37+0 and beyond. Indications, pre-induction Bishop scores, mode of delivery and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes were registered, and compared between the medically indicated and elective induction groups. Ten percent of the inductions were elective, and the four most common indications were maternal request (35%), a previous negative delivery experience or difficult obstetric history (19%), maternal fatigue/tiredness (17%) and anxiety (15%). Nearly half of these inductions were performed at 39+0-40+6 weeks. There were fewer nulliparous women in the elective compared to the medically indicated induction group, 16% vs. 52% (p<0.05). The cesarean section rate in the elective induction group was 14% and 17% in the medically indicated group (14% vs. 17%, OR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3). We found that one in ten inductions in Norway is performed without a strict medical indication and 86% of these inductions resulted in vaginal delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final Data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64(12):1–64. . - PubMed
    1. Mealing NM, Roberts CL, Ford JB, Simpson JM, Morris JM. Trends in induction of labour, 1998–2007: a population-based study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49(6):599–605. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01086.x . - DOI - PubMed
    1. EURO-PERISTAT. The European Perinatal Health Report 2010. [cited 2016 Dec 11] Available from: http://www.europeristat.com/images/doc/EPHR2010_w_disclaimer.pdf.
    1. Medical Birth Registry of Norway. [cited 2016 Dec 19] Available from: http://www.fhi.no/helseregistre/medisinsk-fodselsregister
    1. Coulm B, Blondel B, Alexander S, Boulvain M, Le Ray C. Elective induction of labour and maternal request: a national population-based study. BJOG. 2015. 10.1111/1471-0528.13805 . - DOI - PubMed

Publication types