{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,24]],"date-time":"2026-07-24T13:47:28Z","timestamp":1784900848708,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"American Medical Association (AMA)","issue":"4","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["JAMA Netw Open"],"abstract":"<jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-4\"><jats:title>Importance<\/jats:title><jats:p>Non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor has been demonstrated to potentially improve some obstetric outcomes, such as decreasing cesarean birth. It has been reported that rates of cesarean birth and other obstetric outcomes vary among hospitals with different characteristics.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-5\"><jats:title>Objective<\/jats:title><jats:p>To assess whether obstetric outcomes differ between nulliparous individuals with low-risk pregnancies managed with non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor compared with expectant management in different types of hospitals.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-6\"><jats:title>Design, Setting, and Participants<\/jats:title><jats:p>This retrospective cohort study included non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation compared with expectant management of singleton, nonanomalous, births in nulliparous women with low-risk pregnancies in California between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011. The initial analysis of these data was performed in 2021. Outcomes were assessed by 3 hospital characteristics: location (urban vs rural), obstetric volume, and teaching (academic vs community) status. Volume was categorized based on the average number of births per year and grouped into low (&amp;amp;lt;1200 births per year), medium (1200-2399 births per year), and high (\u22652400 births per year). Births with previous or planned cesarean delivery were excluded, and non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor was defined as induction of labor without a specific medical indication. Testing with \u03c7<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup> and multivariable logistic regression analyses was used for statistical comparisons with a cutoff level of <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u2009.01.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-7\"><jats:title>Exposure<\/jats:title><jats:p>Non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks\u2019 gestation.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-8\"><jats:title>Main Outcomes and Measures<\/jats:title><jats:p>The primary outcome was cesarean birth, and numerous secondary perinatal outcomes were also assessed.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-9\"><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>There were 455\u202f044 births included in this study. When stratified by hospital variables, a number of sociodemographic characteristics were significantly different, such as race and ethnicity, age, body mass index, and insurance type. The adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of cesarean birth were significantly lower in all settings with induction of labor except for low-volume hospitals, in which there was no significant difference (aOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.09). Chorioamnionitis and postpartum hemorrhage were lower with induction of labor among nearly every hospital when stratified by hospital characteristics. Neonatal outcomes were improved in all settings with induction of labor compared with expectant management.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"ab-zoi230294-10\"><jats:title>Conclusions and Relevance<\/jats:title><jats:p>These findings suggest that non\u2013medically indicated induction of labor may be associated with a lower rate of cesarean births and some maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in a range of hospital settings.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2023.9167","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,24]],"date-time":"2023-04-24T15:32:41Z","timestamp":1682350361000},"page":"e239167","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Analysis of Obstetric Outcomes by Hospital Location, Volume, and Teaching Status Associated With Non\u2013Medically Indicated Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks"],"prefix":"10.1001","volume":"6","author":[{"given":"Alyssa R.","family":"Hersh","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kimberley A.","family":"Bullard","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Bharti","family":"Garg","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Megha","family":"Arora","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Brooke F.","family":"Mischkot","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Aaron B.","family":"Caughey","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"10","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,24]]},"reference":[{"issue":"6","key":"zoi230294r1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"513","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1800566","article-title":"Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women.","volume":"379","author":"Grobman","year":"2018","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"B2","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.08.009","article-title":"SMFM statement on elective induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous women at term: the ARRIVE trial.","volume":"221","author":"Society of Maternal-Fetal (SMFM) Publications Committee. Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2020-0305","article-title":"Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the good, the bad and the ugly.","volume":"49","author":"Antoine","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Perinat Med"},{"issue":"17","key":"zoi230294r4","first-page":"1","article-title":"Births: final data for 2020.","volume":"70","author":"Osterman","year":"2021","journal-title":"Natl Vital Stat Rep"},{"issue":"3","key":"zoi230294r5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"527","DOI":"10.1377\/hlthaff.2012.1030","article-title":"Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues.","volume":"32","author":"Kozhimannil","year":"2013","journal-title":"Health Aff (Millwood)"},{"issue":"3","key":"zoi230294r6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2021.2235","article-title":"Evaluation of hospital cesarean delivery\u2013related profits and rates in the United States.","volume":"4","author":"Sakai-Bizmark","year":"2021","journal-title":"JAMA Netw Open"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000002408","article-title":"Term elective induction of labor and pregnancy outcomes among obese women and their offspring.","volume":"131","author":"Gibbs Pickens","year":"2018","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"zoi230294r8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"273.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2019.01.223","article-title":"Maternal and newborn outcomes with elective induction of labor at term.","volume":"220","author":"Souter","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"4","key":"zoi230294r9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"304","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2019.02.046","article-title":"Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.","volume":"221","author":"Grobman","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"6","key":"zoi230294r10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"502.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2012.09.019","article-title":"Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes.","volume":"207","author":"Cheng","year":"2012","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"2","key":"zoi230294r11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"271","DOI":"10.1111\/1471-0528.13807","article-title":"Term elective induction of labour and perinatal outcomes in obese women: retrospective cohort study.","volume":"123","author":"Lee","year":"2016","journal-title":"BJOG"},{"issue":"4","key":"zoi230294r12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"761","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3182a6a4d0","article-title":"Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes.","volume":"122","author":"Darney","year":"2013","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"zoi230294r13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"700","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2006.07.003","article-title":"Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age.","volume":"195","author":"Caughey","year":"2006","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"6","key":"zoi230294r15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"478.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2012.09.029","article-title":"The association between hospital obstetric volume and perinatal outcomes in California.","volume":"207","author":"Snowden","year":"2012","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"5","key":"zoi230294r16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1029","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e31826d60c5","article-title":"Severe maternal morbidity among delivery and postpartum hospitalizations in the United States.","volume":"120","author":"Callaghan","year":"2012","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"8","key":"zoi230294r18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0203316","article-title":"Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions.","volume":"13","author":"Morley","year":"2018","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"8","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003865","article-title":"Maternal and neonatal hospitalization costs associated with elective induction of labor at term in California, 2007-2011.","volume":"136","author":"Hersh","year":"2020","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003930","article-title":"Cost of elective labor induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women.","volume":"136","author":"Einerson","year":"2020","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"6","key":"zoi230294r21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"590.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2019.02.017","article-title":"Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.","volume":"220","author":"Hersh","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"zoi230294r22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajogmf.2020.100294","article-title":"Evidence-based protocol decreases time to vaginal delivery in elective inductions.","volume":"3","author":"Suresh","year":"2021","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM"},{"issue":"6","key":"zoi230294r23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1091","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000004382","article-title":"Outpatient cervical ripening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","volume":"137","author":"McDonagh","year":"2021","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"zoi230294r14","unstructured":"Rural Health Resource Center. RUCA version 1.11. Accessed October 1, 2021. https:\/\/depts.washington.edu\/uwruca\/ruca1\/ruca-uses11.php"},{"key":"zoi230294r17","unstructured":"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health: how does CDC identify severe maternal morbidity? December 26, 2019. Accessed June 1, 2022. https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/reproductivehealth\/maternalinfanthealth\/smm\/severe-morbidity-ICD.htm"}],"container-title":["JAMA Network Open"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jamanetworkopen\/articlepdf\/2803994\/hersh_2023_oi_230294_1681239837.26492.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,24]],"date-time":"2023-04-24T15:32:46Z","timestamp":1682350366000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jamanetworkopen\/fullarticle\/2803994"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,24]]},"references-count":23,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,3]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2023.9167","relation":{},"ISSN":["2574-3805"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2574-3805","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,24]]}}}