The role of labor induction in modern obstetrics

Published:September 06, 2022DOI:
      A primary goal of obstetrical practice is the optimization of maternal and perinatal health. This goal translates into a seemingly simple assessment with regard to considerations of the timing of delivery: delivery should occur when the benefits are greater than those of continued pregnancy. In the absence of an indication for cesarean delivery, planned delivery is initiated with induction of labor. When medical or obstetrical complications exist, they may guide recommendations regarding the timing of delivery. In the absence of these complications, gestational age also has been used to guide delivery timing, given its association with both maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes. If there is no medical indication, delivery before 39 weeks has been discouraged, given its association with greater chances of adverse perinatal outcomes. Conversely, it has been recommended that delivery occur by 42 weeks of gestation, given the perinatal risks that accrue in the post-term period. Historically, a 39-week induction of labor, particularly for individuals with no previous birth, has not been routinely offered in the absence of medical or obstetrical indications. That approach was based on numerous observational studies that demonstrated an increased risk of cesarean delivery and other adverse outcomes among individuals who underwent labor induction compared to those in spontaneous labor. However, from a management and person-centered-choice perspective, the relevant comparison is between those undergoing planned labor induction at a given time vs those planning to continue pregnancy beyond that time. When individuals have been compared using that rubric—either in observational studies or randomized trials that have been performed in a wide variety of locations and populations— there has not been evidence that induction increases adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes. Conversely, even when the only indication for delivery is the achievement of a full-term gestational age, evidence suggests that multiple different outcomes, including cesarean delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, neonatal respiratory impairment, and perinatal mortality, are less likely when induction is performed. This information underscores the importance of making the preferences of pregnant individuals for different birth processes and outcomes central to the approach to delivery timing.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Spong C.Y.
        • Mercer B.M.
        • D’Alton M.
        • Kilpatrick S.
        • Blackwell S.
        • Saade G.
        Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 323-333
      1. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 222.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 135: e237-e260
        • Tita A.T.
        • Landon M.B.
        • Spong C.Y.
        • et al.
        Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 111-120
        • Tita A.T.N.
        • Jablonski K.A.
        • Bailit J.L.
        • et al.
        Neonatal outcomes of elective early-term births after demonstrated fetal lung maturity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 296.e1-296.e8
        • Chiossi G.
        • Lai Y.
        • Landon M.B.
        • et al.
        Timing of delivery and adverse outcomes in term singleton repeat cesarean deliveries.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 561-569
      2. Practice bulletin no. 146: management of late-term and postterm pregnancies.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 390-396
        • Landon M.B.
        • Hauth J.C.
        • Leveno K.J.
        • et al.
        Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 2581-2589
        • Fisch J.M.
        • English D.
        • Pedaline S.
        • Brooks K.
        • Simhan H.N.
        Labor induction process improvement: a patient quality-of-care initiative.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 797-803
        • Moore J.
        • Low L.K.
        Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: what does the evidence tell us?.
        J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2012; 26: 242-250
        • Darney B.G.
        • Caughey A.B.
        Elective induction of labor symposium: nomenclature, research methodological issues, and outcomes.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 57: 343-362
        • Baud D.
        • Rouiller S.
        • Hohlfeld P.
        • Tolsa J.F.
        • Vial Y.
        Adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in elective and medically indicated inductions of labor at term.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26: 1595-1601
        • Amis D.
        Healthy birth practice #1: let labor begin on its own.
        J Perinat Educ. 2014; 23: 178-187
        • Coonrod D.V.
        • Bay R.C.
        • Kishi G.Y.
        The epidemiology of labor induction: Arizona, 1997.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 1355-1362
        • Dublin S.
        • Lydon-Rochelle M.
        • Kaplan R.C.
        • Watts D.H.
        • Critchlow C.W.
        Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: 986-994
        • Ehrenthal D.B.
        • Jiang X.
        • Strobino D.M.
        Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 35-42
        • Macer J.A.
        • Macer C.L.
        • Chan L.S.
        Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1690-1696
        • Yeast J.D.
        • Jones A.
        • Poskin M.
        Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 628-633
        • Vrouenraets F.P.
        • Roumen F.J.
        • Dehing C.J.
        • van den Akker E.S.
        • Aarts M.J.
        • Scheve E.J.
        Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 690-697
        • Kiesewetter B.
        • Lehner R.
        Maternal outcome monitoring: induction of labor versus spontaneous onset of labor—a retrospective data analysis..
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 37-41
        • Little S.E.
        • Caughey A.B.
        Induction of labor and cesarean: what is the true relationship?.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 58: 269-281
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Bishop J.T.
        Maternal complications of pregnancy increase beyond 40 weeks of gestation in low-risk women.
        J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 540-545
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Musci T.J.
        Complications of term pregnancies beyond 37 weeks of gestation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 57-62
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Stotland N.E.
        • Washington A.E.
        • Escobar G.J.
        Maternal and obstetric complications of pregnancy are associated with increasing gestational age at term.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196: 155.e1-155.e6
        • Cheng Y.W.
        • Nicholson J.M.
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Bruckner T.A.
        • Washington A.E.
        • Caughey A.B.
        Perinatal outcomes in low-risk term pregnancies: do they differ by week of gestation?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 370.e1-370.e7
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Washington A.E.
        • Laros Jr., R.K.
        Neonatal complications of term pregnancy: rates by gestational age increase in a continuous, not threshold, fashion.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 185-190
        • Arias F.
        Predictability of complications associated with prolongation of pregnancy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 70: 101-106
        • Hilder L.
        • Costeloe K.
        • Thilaganathan B.
        Prolonged pregnancy: evaluating gestation-specific risks of fetal and infant mortality.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105: 169-173
        • Heimstad R.
        • Romundstad P.R.
        • Eik-Nes S.H.
        • Salvesen K.A.
        Outcomes of pregnancy beyond 37 weeks of gestation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 500-508
        • Zhang X.
        • Kramer M.S.
        Variations in mortality and morbidity by gestational age among infants born at term.
        J Pediatr. 2009; 154: 358-362
        • Smith G.C.
        Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 489-496
        • Rosenstein M.G.
        • Snowden J.M.
        • Cheng Y.W.
        • Caughey A.B.
        The mortality risk of expectant management compared with delivery stratified by gestational age and race and ethnicity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 660.e1-660.e8
        • Boulvain M.
        • Senat M.V.
        • Perrotin F.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 2600-2605
        • Koopmans C.M.
        • Bijlenga D.
        • Groen H.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2009; 374: 979-988
        • Hannah M.E.
        • Hannah W.J.
        • Hellmann J.
        • Hewson S.
        • Milner R.
        • Willan A.
        Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group.
        N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 1587-1592
        • Wennerholm U.B.
        • Saltvedt S.
        • Wessberg A.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial.
        BMJ. 2019; 367: l6131
        • Keulen J.K.
        • Bruinsma A.
        • Kortekaas J.C.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial.
        BMJ. 2019; 364: l344
        • Walker K.F.
        • Bugg G.J.
        • Macpherson M.
        • et al.
        Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 813-822
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Rice M.M.
        • Reddy U.M.
        • et al.
        Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 513-523
        • Ghi T.
        • Dall’Asta A.
        • Fieni S.
        Elective induction of labour in low risk nulliparous women at term: caution is needed.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 239: 64-66
        • Collins R.
        • Bowman L.
        • Landray M.
        • Peto R.
        The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 674-678
        • El-Sayed Y.Y.
        • Rice M.M.
        • Grobman W.A.
        • et al.
        Elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management: factors associated with adverse outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 692-697
        • Silver R.M.
        • Rice M.M.
        • Grobman W.A.
        • et al.
        Customized probability of vaginal delivery with induction of labor and expectant management in nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 698-705
        • Alkmark M.
        • Keulen J.K.J.
        • Kortekaas J.C.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials.
        PLoS Med. 2020; 17e1003436
        • Sotiriadis A.
        • Petousis S.
        • Thilaganathan B.
        • et al.
        Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta-analysis.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 26-35
        • Mishanina E.
        • Rogozinska E.
        • Thatthi T.
        • Uddin-Khan R.
        • Khan K.S.
        • Meads C.
        Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673
        • Main E.K.
        • Chang S.C.
        • Cheng Y.W.
        • Rosenstein M.G.
        • Lagrew D.C.
        Hospital-level variation in the frequency of cesarean delivery among nulliparous women who undergo labor induction.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 1179-1189
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Caughey A.B.
        Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221: 304-310
        • Maslow A.S.
        • Sweeny A.L.
        Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: 917-922
        • Allen V.M.
        • O’Connell C.M.
        • Farrell S.A.
        • Baskett T.F.
        Economic implications of method of delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 192-197
        • Cammu H.
        • Martens G.
        • Ruyssinck G.
        • Amy J.J.
        Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 240-244
        • Goeree R.
        • Hannah M.
        • Hewson S.
        Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour versus serial antenatal monitoring in the Canadian Multicentre postterm Pregnancy Trial.
        CMAJ. 1995; 152: 1445-1450
        • Vijgen S.M.
        • Koopmans C.M.
        • Opmeer B.C.
        • et al.
        An economic analysis of induction of labour and expectant monitoring in women with gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia at term (HYPITAT trial).
        BJOG. 2010; 117: 1577-1585
        • Walker K.F.
        • Dritsaki M.
        • Bugg G.
        • et al.
        Labour induction near term for women aged 35 or over: an economic evaluation.
        BJOG. 2017; 124: 929-934
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Sandoval G.
        • Reddy U.M.
        • et al.
        Health resource utilization of labor induction versus expectant management.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 222: 369.e1-369.e11
        • Einerson B.D.
        • Nelson R.E.
        • Sandoval G.
        • et al.
        Cost of elective labor induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 19-25
        • Werner E.F.
        • Schlichting L.E.
        • Grobman W.A.
        • Viner-Brown S.
        • Clark M.
        • Vivier P.M.
        Association of term labor induction vs expectant management with child academic outcomes.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3e202503
        • Yisma E.
        • Mol B.W.
        • Lynch J.W.
        • Mittinty M.N.
        • Smithers L.G.
        Elective labor induction vs expectant management in women and children’s educational outcomes at 8 years of age.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 58: 99-104
        • Ghartey J.
        • Macones G.A.
        39-week nulliparous inductions are not elective.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 222: 519-520
        • Berghella V.
        • Al-Hafez L.
        • Bellussi F.
        Induction for 39 weeks’ gestation: let’s call it what it is.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020; 2: 100098