Induction of Labor: A Narrative Review on Cost Efficiency in Maternity Care
- PMID: 39529780
- PMCID: PMC11552203
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.71302
Induction of Labor: A Narrative Review on Cost Efficiency in Maternity Care
Abstract
The clinical and financial implications of induction of labor (IOL) in comparison to elective cesarean sections and expectant management are examined in this review. IOL is frequently used to avoid complications such as hypertensive disorders and stillbirth, but is can be expensive, particularly if a failed induction is followed by a cesarean. The cost-effectiveness of IOL varies based on factors such as gestational age, maternal obesity, and prior cesareans. Misoprostol has proven to be a more cost-effective induction method than oxytocin, with higher success rates for vaginal delivery and shorter hospital stays. However, spontaneous labor remains the most cost-efficient option, requiring fewer interventions and reducing costs. Membrane sweeping is one alternative that reduces costs and promotes unplanned labor. Although high-risk situations may necessitate elective IOL, routine use of these devices without a medical necessity raises expenditures without enhancing outcomes. It is recommended that healthcare professionals implement careful labor management techniques, utilizing cost-effective approaches whenever feasible, particularly in resource-limited settings. More randomized trials are required to evaluate the long-term effects of IOL on costs and health, thus shaping future labor management strategies.
Keywords: cesarean section; cost-efficiency; healthcare management; labor induction; maternity care; vaginal delivery.
Copyright © 2024, Mamieh et al.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
References
-
- Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Sanchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione AC, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230:0–95. - PubMed
-
- The indication for induction of labor impacts the risk of cesarean delivery. Parkes I, Kabiri D, Hants Y, Ezra Y. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:224–228. - PubMed
-
- Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries: ACOG committee opinion, number 831. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:0–9. - PubMed
-
- The history of labour induction: how did we get here? Drife JO. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;77:3–14. - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources