Midwives and Nonmedically Indicated Induction of Labor

Ruhl, Catherine; Bingham, Debra

doi:10.1111/jmwh.12197

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United States in 2018, 27.1% of births were induced (Martin et al 2019). Induction increases the chances that an individual will end up having a C-section, which further aligns the birth experience with the biomedical model's dependence on technological intervention (Ruhl and Bingham 2014). Midwives tend to have lower rates of labor induction and embrace a spontaneous start to labor when they can (Attanasio and Kozhimannil 2018).…”

Section: When I Asked An Open-ended Question Aboutmentioning

confidence: 86%

Medicalization and Fear: A Midwifery View of the Phenomenon and the Backlash

Comstock

2021

JUE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of medicalization in the United States is something that midwives must deal with on a daily basis, and it has far-reaching consequences for women’s health. This article examines the culture of birth in the U.S. and how medicalization has manifested itself as a social norm from the perspectives of working certified nurse midwives in hospitals and birth centers. It explores the philosophy of the medicalized birth, the impact of technology on the perpetuation of medicalization in United States’ culture, and the fear of this phenomenon that midwives are starting to see in practice, which adversely affects their work. This article argues that advances in and dependence on obstetrical technology have enabled medicalization to continue and created a response of fear from women who worry this phenomenon will negatively affect their birthing experience. My research demonstrates that midwives recognize that the dominance of technology in health care has shaped not only how birth has become medicalized, but also how women are responding to this “technocratic birth” and how navigating women’s fears about hyper-medicalization has become a central part of midwives’ practice. Through Michel Foucault’s theory of biopower and Robbie Davis-Floyd’s idea of the “technocratic birth,” this article explains how medicalization depends on technology and why midwives are seeing an adverse reaction from women who fear these trends.

show abstract

Section: When I Asked An Open-ended Question Aboutmentioning

confidence: 86%

Medicalization and Fear: A Midwifery View of the Phenomenon and the Backlash

Comstock

2021

JUE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They can add unnecessary cost to the health system, affect the quality of care, and may increase morbidity among women and newborns during childbirth 13. Indeed, early hospital admission, for a non-clinically indicated IOL in this case, might increase a woman’s risk for further medical interventions,3 neonatal morbidity, and cost to the Palestinian health system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently emphasized that induction of labor should be only used with clear medical indications and only to improve pregnancy outcomes 1. However, IOL continues to be one of the most frequently used peripartum interventions with a prevalence exceeding 20% in many countries 3,4…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Induction Of Labor Among Singleton Pregnancies In Six Palestinian Governmental Hospitals: A Population-Based Cohort Study</p>

Hassan

Laine

Fosse

et al. 2019

IJWH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo explore rates and review practices regarding induction of labor (IOL) among singleton pregnancies in Palestine.DesignA prospective population-based cohort study.SettingSix secondary and tertiary governmental hospitals located in the two regions of Palestine: West Bank and Gaza.ParticipantsSingleton pregnancies who had IOL in participating units during the study period were included (n=8290). Women having multiple gestations (1004), planned cesarean births (703), those admitted with cervical dilation >6cm (11228), and pregnancies with no record of cervical dilation and/or gestational age on admission (219) were excluded.Primary outcome measureRates of IOL in participating units and regions.ResultsThere were a total of 33,402 singleton births during the study period with an IOL rate of 24.8%. Rates of IOL significantly varied between units, ranging from 12.9% to 45.6% (P-value <0.05). The majority of women with no previous uterine scar were induced at gestational ages ≤40 weeks where 43.8% were induced at 39–40 gestational weeks (29.9% multiparous; 13.9% nulliparous) and 17.7% were induced between 37 and 38 gestational weeks (11.9% multiparous; 5.8% nulliparous).ConclusionSignificant variations in IOL practices between Palestinian hospitals and regions suggest overuse of IOL among singleton pregnancies in some units with the majority of these being performed before 40 weeks’ gestation. These findings indicate a gap between implementation of best evidence and current clinical practice.

show abstract

Midwives and Nonmedically Indicated Induction of Labor

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Medicalization and Fear: A Midwifery View of the Phenomenon and the Backlash

Medicalization and Fear: A Midwifery View of the Phenomenon and the Backlash

<p>Induction Of Labor Among Singleton Pregnancies In Six Palestinian Governmental Hospitals: A Population-Based Cohort Study</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About