Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2025; 42(04): 495-501
DOI: 10.1055/a-2405-3703
Original Article

Identifying Elective Induction of Labor among a Diverse Pregnant Population from Electronic Health Records within a Large Integrated Health Care System

Fagen Xie 
1   Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
,
Michael J. Fassett
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
3   Department of Clinical Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California
,
Theresa M. Im
1   Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
,
Daniella Park
1   Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
,
Vicki Y. Chiu
1   Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
,
Darios Getahun 
1   Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
4   Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was partially supported by Kaiser Permanente Direct Community Benefit Funds.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Distinguishing between medically indicated induction of labor (iIOL) and elective induction of labor (eIOL) is a daunting process for researchers. We aimed to develop a Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to identify eIOLs from electronic health records (EHRs) within a large integrated health care system.

Study Design We used structured and unstructured data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California's EHRs of patients who were <35 years old and had singleton deliveries between 37 and 40 gestational weeks. Induction of labor (IOL) pregnancies were identified if there was evidence of an IOL diagnosis code, procedure code, or documentation in a delivery flowsheet or progress note. A comprehensive NLP algorithm was developed and refined through an iterative process of chart reviews and adjudications, where IOL-associated reasons (medically indicated vs. elective induction) were reviewed. The final algorithm was applied to discern the indications of IOLs performed during the study period.

Results A total of 332,163 eligible pregnancies were identified between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2022. Of these eligible pregnancies, 68,541 (20.6%) were IOL, of which 6,824 (10.0%) were eIOL. Validation of the NLP process against 300 randomly selected pregnancies (100 eIOL, iIOL, and non-IOL cases each) yielded a positive predictive value of 83.0% and 88.0% for eIOL and iIOL, respectively. The rates of eIOL among the maternal age groups ranged between 9.6 and 10.3%, except for the <20 years group (12.2%). Non-Hispanic White individuals had the highest rate of eIOL (13.2%), while non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest rate of eIOL (7.8%). The rate of eIOL increased from 1.0% in the 37-week gestational age (GA) group to 20.6% in the 40-week GA group.

Conclusion Findings suggest that the developed NLP algorithm effectively identifies eIOL. It can be utilized to support eIOL-related pharmacoepidemiological studies, fill in knowledge gaps, and provide content more relevant to researchers.

Key Points

  • An NLP algorithm was developed to identify indications of IOL.

  • The study algorithm was successfully implemented within a large integrated health care system.

  • The study algorithm can be utilized to support eIOL-related studies.

Keywords

pregnancy - induction of labor - elective induction of labor - electronic health record - natural language processing - algorithm

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 24 May 2024

Accepted: 25 August 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
29 August 2024

Article published online:
19 September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res 2019; 8: F1000 Faculty Rev-1829
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW. et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (04) 761-769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Souter V, Painter I, Sitcov K, Caughey AB. Maternal and newborn outcomes with elective induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (03) 273.e1-273.e11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hong J, Atkinson J, Roddy Mitchell A. et al. Comparison of maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (05) e2313162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Declercq E, Belanoff C, Iverson R. Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20 (01) 458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cárdenas V, Nelson JC, Holt VL, Gardella C, Easterling TR. Induction of labor in the absence of standard medical indications: incidence and correlates. Med Care 2007; 45 (06) 505-512
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 National Center for Health Statistics. Natality public-use data 2016–2021, on CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed May 10, 2024 at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality-expanded-current.html
    PubMed
  • 8 National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System: Birth data. 2022 . Accessed May 10, 2024 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/births.htm
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Simpson KR. Trends in labor induction in the United States, 1989 to 2020. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2022; 47 (04) 235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Dögl M, Romundstad P, Berntzen LD. et al. Elective induction of labor: a prospective observational study. PLoS ONE 2018; 13 (11) e0208098
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Friedman C, Alderson PO, Austin JH, Cimino JJ, Johnson SB. A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1 (02) 161-174
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Xie F, Khadka N, Fassett MJ. et al. Identification of preterm labor evaluation visits and extraction of cervical length measures from electronic health records within a large integrated health care system: algorithm development and validation. JMIR Med Inform 2022; 10 (09) e37896
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Clapp MA, Kim E, James KE, Perlis RH, Kaimal AJ, McCoy Jr TH. Natural language processing of admission notes to predict severe maternal morbidity during the delivery encounter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 227 (03) 511.e1-511.e8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Klein AZ, Cai H, Weissenbacher D, Levine LD, Gonzalez-Hernandez G. A natural language processing pipeline to advance the use of Twitter data for digital epidemiology of adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Biomed Inform 2020; 112S: 100076
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK. et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J 2012; 16 (03) 37-41
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Loper E, Bird S. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics; TMTNLP 2022; July 7, 2022; Philadelphia, PA
    CrossrefPubMed