-
Journal of women's health · Nov 2014
Trends in elective labor induction for six United States health plans, 2001-2007.
- Sascha Dublin, Karin E Johnson, Rod L Walker, Lyndsay A Avalos, Susan E Andrade, Sarah J Beaton, Robert L Davis, Lisa J Herrinton, Pamala A Pawloski, Marsha A Raebel, David H Smith, Sengwee Toh, and Aaron B Caughey.
- 1 Group Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washingon.
- J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014 Nov 1; 23 (11): 904-11.
BackgroundTo describe trends in labor induction, including elective induction, from 2001 to 2007 for six U.S. health plans and to examine the validity of induction measures derived from birth certificate and health plan data.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included 339,123 deliveries at 35 weeks' gestation or greater. Linked health plan and birth certificate data provided information about induction, maternal medical conditions, and pregnancy complications. Induction was defined from diagnosis and procedure codes and birth certificate data and considered elective if no accepted indication was coded. We calculated induction prevalence across health plans and years. At four health plans, we reviewed medical records to validate induction measures.ResultsBased on electronic data, induction prevalence rose from 28% in 2001 to 32% in 2005, then declined to 29% in 2007. The trend was driven by changes in the prevalence of apparent elective induction, which rose from 11% in 2001 to 14% in 2005 and then declined to 11% in 2007. The trend was similar for subgroups by parity and gestational age. Elective induction prevalence varied considerably across plans. On review of 86 records, 36% of apparent elective inductions identified from electronic data were confirmed as valid.ConclusionsElective induction appeared to peak in 2005 and then decline. The decrease may reflect quality improvement initiatives or changes in policies, patient or provider attitudes, or coding practices. The low validation rate for measures of elective induction defined from electronic data has important implications for existing quality measures and for research studies examining induction's outcomes.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.