PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Cheng, Tuck Seng AU - Zahir, Farzana AU - Solomi V, Carolin AU - Verma, Ashok AU - Rao, Sereesha AU - Choudhury, Saswati Sanyal AU - Deka, Gitanjali AU - Mahanta, Pranabika AU - Kakoty, Swapna AU - Medhi, Robin AU - Chhabra, Shakuntala AU - Rani, Anjali AU - Bora, Amrit AU - Roy, Indrani AU - Minz, Bina AU - Bharti, Omesh Kumar AU - Deka, Rupanjali AU - Opondo, Charles AU - Churchill, David AU - Knight, Marian AU - Kurinczuk, Jennifer J AU - Nair, Manisha TI - Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: a multicentre prospective cohort study in India AID - 10.1101/2023.12.21.23300361 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.12.21.23300361 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/24/2023.12.21.23300361.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/24/2023.12.21.23300361.full AB - OBJECTIVE To investigate clinical and non-clinical factors influencing labour induction and augmentation in pregnant women in India.DESIGN Prospective cohort study of 9305 pregnant women.SETTING 13 tertiary and community hospitals in six states across India.PARTICIPANTS Women ≥18 years of age and planning a vaginal birth in the study hospital were recruited in the third trimester of pregnancy (≥28 weeks of gestation) and followed-up during labour and up to 48 hours of childbirth.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Outcomes were induction and augmentation of labour as per childbirth records. Maternal and fetal clinical conditions in current pregnancy were abstracted from medical records at recruitment and after childbirth, and classified based on guidelines to generate induction- related clinical indication groups: (i) ≥2 indications, (ii) one indication, (iii) no indication and (iv) contraindication. Non-clinical factors included self-reported maternal socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, and maternal medical and obstetric histories from medical records at recruitment. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent associations of induction and augmentation of labour with the clinical and non- clinical factors.RESULTS Among 9305 women, over two-fifth experienced labour induction (n=3936, 42.3%) and about a quarter had labour augmentation (n=2537, 27.3%). The majority who received labour induction/augmentation had at least one or more clinical indications, but around 34% did not have an indication. Compared with women with ≥2 indications, those with one (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence intervals 0.42 to 0.58) or no (0.24, 0.20 to 0.28) indication or with contraindications (0.12, 0.07 to 0.20) were less likely to be induced, adjusting for non-clinical characteristics. These associations were similar for augmentation of labour (0.71, 0.61 to 0.84, for one indication; 0.47, 0.39 to 0.55 for no indication; 0.17, 0.09 to 0.34 for contraindications). Several maternal demographic, healthcare utilization and socio-economic factors were independently associated with labour induction and augmentation.CONCLUSIONS Decisions about induction and augmentation of labour in our study population in India were largely guided by clinical recommendations but in nearly a third, there was no clinical indication based on guidelines. Further research is required to understand the complex influence of clinical need and socio-demographic factors on labour induction/augmentation in the context of risk and safety.What is already known on this topicSeveral established international and national guidelines recommend specific clinical indications and/or contraindications for induction of labour.Pregnant women are also given the option to decide on labour induction and/or augmentation after providing relevant informationWhat this study addsCompared to women with at least two clinical indications as per guidelines, those with one or no indication or with contraindications were less likely to be induced or augmented, independent of other non-clinical maternal characteristics.In a third of the participants, there was no clinical indication for induction/augmentation of labour based on guidelines.Several non-clinical factors including maternal demographic, healthcare utilization and socio-economic factors influenced the decision for labour induction and augmentation, which in turn could be due to women’s choice or clinicians’ unconscious bias and warrants further research.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe MaatHRI platform is funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Grant Ref: MR/P022030/1) and a Transition Support Award (Grant Ref: MR/W029294/1). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis or writing of the report. MN had full access to all the information for the paper and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This cohort study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided their written informed consent. Ethics approvals were obtained from the institutional review boards of each coordinating Indian institution, the Government of Indias Health Ministrys Screening Committee, the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC), University of Oxford, UK.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData are available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author.