Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: a multicentre prospective cohort study in India.

Clinical conditions Labour augmentation Labour induction Non-clinical factors

Journal

The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia
ISSN: 2772-3682
Titre abrégé: Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918419282806676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 18 01 2024
revised: 10 04 2024
accepted: 23 04 2024
medline: 17 5 2024
pubmed: 17 5 2024
entrez: 17 5 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Guidelines for labour induction/augmentation involve evaluating maternal and fetal complications, and allowing informed decisions from pregnant women. This study aimed to comprehensively explore clinical and non-clinical factors influencing labour induction and augmentation in an Indian population. A prospective cohort study included 9305 pregnant women from 13 hospitals across India. Self-reported maternal socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, and maternal medical and obstetric histories from medical records were obtained at recruitment (≥28 weeks of gestation), and women were followed up within 48 h after childbirth. Maternal and fetal clinical information were classified based on guidelines into four groups of clinical factors: (i) ≥2 indications, (ii) one indication, (iii) no indication and (iv) contraindication. Associations of clinical and non-clinical factors (socio-demographic, healthcare utilisation and lifestyle related) with labour induction and augmentation were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Over two-fifths (n = 3936, 42.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.3-43.3%) of the study population experienced labour induction and more than a quarter (n = 2537, 27.3%, 95% CI 26.4-28.2%) experienced augmentation. Compared with women with ≥2 indications, those with one (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.58) or no indication (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.28) or with contraindications (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) were less likely to be induced, adjusting for non-clinical characteristics. These associations were similar for labour augmentation. Notably, 34% of women who were induced or augmented did not have any clinical indication. Several maternal demographic (age at labour, parity and body mass index in early pregnancy), healthcare utilization (number of antenatal check-ups, duration of iron-folic acid supplementation and individuals managing childbirth) and socio-economic factors (religion, living below poverty line, maternal education and partner's occupation) were independently associated with labour induction and augmentation. Although decisions about induction and augmentation of labour in our study population in India were largely guided by clinical recommendations, we cannot ignore that more than a third of the women did not have an indication. Decisions could also be influenced by non-clinical factors which need further research. The MaatHRI platform is funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Grant Ref: MR/P022030/1) and a Transition Support Award (Grant Ref: MR/W029294/1).

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Guidelines for labour induction/augmentation involve evaluating maternal and fetal complications, and allowing informed decisions from pregnant women. This study aimed to comprehensively explore clinical and non-clinical factors influencing labour induction and augmentation in an Indian population.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A prospective cohort study included 9305 pregnant women from 13 hospitals across India. Self-reported maternal socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, and maternal medical and obstetric histories from medical records were obtained at recruitment (≥28 weeks of gestation), and women were followed up within 48 h after childbirth. Maternal and fetal clinical information were classified based on guidelines into four groups of clinical factors: (i) ≥2 indications, (ii) one indication, (iii) no indication and (iv) contraindication. Associations of clinical and non-clinical factors (socio-demographic, healthcare utilisation and lifestyle related) with labour induction and augmentation were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses.
Findings UNASSIGNED
Over two-fifths (n = 3936, 42.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.3-43.3%) of the study population experienced labour induction and more than a quarter (n = 2537, 27.3%, 95% CI 26.4-28.2%) experienced augmentation. Compared with women with ≥2 indications, those with one (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.58) or no indication (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.28) or with contraindications (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) were less likely to be induced, adjusting for non-clinical characteristics. These associations were similar for labour augmentation. Notably, 34% of women who were induced or augmented did not have any clinical indication. Several maternal demographic (age at labour, parity and body mass index in early pregnancy), healthcare utilization (number of antenatal check-ups, duration of iron-folic acid supplementation and individuals managing childbirth) and socio-economic factors (religion, living below poverty line, maternal education and partner's occupation) were independently associated with labour induction and augmentation.
Interpretation UNASSIGNED
Although decisions about induction and augmentation of labour in our study population in India were largely guided by clinical recommendations, we cannot ignore that more than a third of the women did not have an indication. Decisions could also be influenced by non-clinical factors which need further research.
Funding UNASSIGNED
The MaatHRI platform is funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Grant Ref: MR/P022030/1) and a Transition Support Award (Grant Ref: MR/W029294/1).

Identifiants

pubmed: 38757059
doi: 10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100417
pii: S2772-3682(24)00067-2
pmc: PMC11097080
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100417

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Tuck Seng Cheng (TS)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Farzana Zahir (F)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India.

Solomi V Carolin (SV)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makunda Christian Leprosy and General Hospital, Karimganj, Assam, India.

Ashok Verma (A)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Government Medical College, Kangra, Tanda, Himachal Pradesh, India.

Sereesha Rao (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, India.

Saswati Sanyal Choudhury (SS)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Gitanjali Deka (G)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tezpur Medical College, Tezpur, India.

Pranabika Mahanta (P)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, India.

Swapna Kakoty (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India.

Robin Medhi (R)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India.

Shakuntala Chhabra (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Maharashtra, India.

Anjali Rani (A)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Banaras Hindu University Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Amrit Bora (A)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sonapur District Hospital, Assam, India.

Indrani Roy (I)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nazareth Hospital, Shillong, Meghalaya, India.

Bina Minz (B)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sewa Bhawan Hospital Society, Chattisgarh, India.

Omesh Kumar Bharti (OK)

State Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh, India.

Rupanjali Deka (R)

MaatHRI Project, Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Charles Opondo (C)

Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

David Churchill (D)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, UK.
Research Institute for Healthcare Science, University of Wolverhampton, UK.

Marian Knight (M)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Jennifer J Kurinczuk (JJ)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Manisha Nair (M)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Classifications MeSH