Racial and ethnic differences in access to and outcomes of elective induction of labor in low-risk pregnancies: a scoping review

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Siddhi Mathur, Alisha V. Olsthoorn
{"title":"Racial and ethnic differences in access to and outcomes of elective induction of labor in low-risk pregnancies: a scoping review","authors":"Siddhi Mathur,&nbsp;Alisha V. Olsthoorn","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07735-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Elective induction of labor (IOL) has been increasingly performed since growing data suggesting its safety and potential improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Recommendations of elective IOL for patients from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds given the data showing increased risk of stillbirth for some populations has been met with criticism. This scoping review aims to determine if there are racial disparities in access to elective IOL and maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A review of the literature on IOL that appeared in English journals was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. The search strategy included the combination of key terms “induction of labour” and “race” or “ethnicity” in titles, abstracts, or keywords.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 8 studies were identified and included. The articles were heterogenous in the race or ethnicity distinctions they used for analysis. Three out of 4 studies that analyzed the rate of elective IOL by race found that White patients were more likely to receive the intervention. Three out of 4 studies that analyzed outcomes of IOL found no difference, while one study found Black patients benefit most from IOL at 38 weeks compared to other races that had the lowest risk of complications with IOL at 39 weeks.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Racial and ethnic disparities exist with White patients being most likely to access this intervention. The majority of data points to similar outcomes, suggesting no increased harm to elective IOL for a particular group. However, the optimal timing of elective IOL given disproportionate stillbirth risk remains to be elucidated.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-024-07735-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Elective induction of labor (IOL) has been increasingly performed since growing data suggesting its safety and potential improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Recommendations of elective IOL for patients from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds given the data showing increased risk of stillbirth for some populations has been met with criticism. This scoping review aims to determine if there are racial disparities in access to elective IOL and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods

A review of the literature on IOL that appeared in English journals was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. The search strategy included the combination of key terms “induction of labour” and “race” or “ethnicity” in titles, abstracts, or keywords.

Results

A total of 8 studies were identified and included. The articles were heterogenous in the race or ethnicity distinctions they used for analysis. Three out of 4 studies that analyzed the rate of elective IOL by race found that White patients were more likely to receive the intervention. Three out of 4 studies that analyzed outcomes of IOL found no difference, while one study found Black patients benefit most from IOL at 38 weeks compared to other races that had the lowest risk of complications with IOL at 39 weeks.

Conclusion

Racial and ethnic disparities exist with White patients being most likely to access this intervention. The majority of data points to similar outcomes, suggesting no increased harm to elective IOL for a particular group. However, the optimal timing of elective IOL given disproportionate stillbirth risk remains to be elucidated.

Abstract Image

低危妊娠中选择引产的机会和结果的种族和民族差异:范围界定综述
目的 由于越来越多的数据表明选择性引产(IOL)是安全的,并有可能改善产妇和新生儿的预后,因此越来越多的人选择了引产。鉴于有数据显示某些人群的死产风险增加,对来自少数种族或少数民族背景的患者进行选择性引产的建议受到了批评。本范围综述旨在确定在选择性人工晶体植入术以及孕产妇和新生儿预后方面是否存在种族差异。方法使用 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 对英文期刊中有关人工晶体植入术的文献进行了综述。检索策略包括在标题、摘要或关键词中组合关键术语 "引产 "和 "种族 "或 "民族"。这些文章在分析时使用的种族或民族区分不尽相同。在按种族分析选择性人工晶体植入率的 4 项研究中,有 3 项发现白人患者更有可能接受干预。4 项分析人工晶体植入术结果的研究中有 3 项未发现差异,而一项研究发现黑人患者在 38 周时从人工晶体植入术中获益最多,而其他种族患者在 39 周时人工晶体植入术的并发症风险最低。大多数数据显示结果相似,表明选择性人工晶体植入术对特定群体的伤害并没有增加。然而,鉴于死产风险过高,选择性人工晶体植入术的最佳时机仍有待阐明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信