Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation

Järvelin, Marjo Riitta, Hartikainen‐Sorri, Anna‐Liisa, Rantakallio, Paula·1993·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To examine indications for the induction of labour and variations in the current policy of induction at different levels of obstetric specialisation and to compare the outcome of induced and spontaneous labour. Design A prospective 1 year birth cohort. Setting Maternity hospitals in the two northernmost administrative provinces of Finland, including one university hospital and three central hospitals, three local hospitals and five health centres. Subjects Eight thousand six hundred and six singleton pregnancies, including 1679 with induced labour. Main outcome measure Data collection on age, parity, social factors and education at antenatal clinic. Data on labour collected from the hospital records after delivery. Results Labour was induced significantly more often at units of the lowest level of specialisation, the health centres (29.4%) than at the local hospitals (23.6%, P<0.003) or in the most specialised central hospitals (17.7%, P<0.0001). Cases of induced labour accumulated on working days. Indicative reasons, such as maternal or fetal conditions, comprised 45.0% of the indications for induction, the most common causes being elective reasons, e.g. timing of labour (51.3%). The risk of elective induction was 2.6 times greater at the primary care level than at the central hospitals (95% confidence limit, CL 2.0.3.2). The corresponding risk ratio for local hospitals was 1.8 (CL 1.5–2.1). The risk of caesarean section was 1.5 times greater in the elective induction group than in the spontaneous group (CL 1.1–1.9) and 2.9 times greater in the indicative induction group. The most common indication for caesarean section was dysfunctional, arrested labour; causes such as fetal asphyxia or antenatal haemorrhage were not seen in excess. Conclusion The practice of induction of labour are not consistent in different hospitals. The opinions of individual practitioners and staff routines influence the induction policy nearly as much as do medical reasons. Despite the safety of induction, a liberal induction policy leads to an increase in operative deliveries creating potential risks for the mother and child and greater expense.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12971.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Järvelin, M. R., Hartikainen‐Sorri, A., & Rantakallio, P.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-04
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
310-315
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2027062684
Cited by
233
References
0
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12971.x
The paper
Järvelin, M. R., Hartikainen‐Sorri, A., & Rantakallio, P. (1993). Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12971.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.