Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Title: Elective induction of labour: The problem of interpretation and communication of risks
Authors: Cheyne, Helen
Abhyankar, Purva
Williams, Brian
Contact Email:
Keywords: Decision making
Induction of labour
Prolonged pregnancy
Issue Date: Aug-2012
Publisher: Elsevier for Churchill Livingstone
Citation: Cheyne H, Abhyankar P & Williams B (2012) Elective induction of labour: The problem of interpretation and communication of risks, Midwifery, 28 (4), pp. 412-415.
Abstract: First paragraph: Induction of labour is one of the most commonly performed procedures in maternity care in developed countries, experienced by over 20% of pregnant women (approximately 160,000 women annually in the UK (UK National Statistics)). Current guidelines suggest that it should be used in situations where the risks to mother or baby of continuing pregnancy outweigh the risks of artificially bringing the pregnancy to an end (NICE, 2008). Where medical complications (for example, pregnancy hypertension, renal or liver disease or diabetes) are present the dangers are relatively clear and thus the balancing of risks is reasonably straightforward. However, around 50% of labour inductions are performed in the absence of recognised medical complications ( [Grivell et al., 2011] and [Stock et al., 2012]). In these situations uncertainty persists about the appropriate timing, risks and benefits of induction, leaving significant room for both professional debate and maternal concern.
Type: Journal Article
DOI Link:
Rights: The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
Affiliation: NMAHP Research
NMAHP Research
NMAHP Research

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Cheyne et al 2012-Commentary.pdf166.64 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 31/12/2999     Request a copy

Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.