121 5 MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS AS INDICATIONS FOR ROUTINE IOL | 13 GOODARZI et al. 22. StataCorp. STATA release 14.1. Published online 2015. 23. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, Crowther CA, Gomersall JC. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Published online July 15, 2020. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5 24. Viteri O, Sibai B. Challenges and limitations of clinical trials on labor induction: a review of the literature. Am J Perinatol Rep. 2018;08(04):e365-e378. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1676577 25. Jay A, Thomas H, Brooks F. Induction of labour: How do women get information andmake decisions? Findings of a qualitative study. Br J Midwifery. 2018;26(1):22-29. doi:10.12968/ bjom.2018.26.1.22 26. Farnworth A, Graham RH, Haighton CA, Robson SC. How is high quality research evidence used in everyday decisions about induction of labour between pregnant women and maternity care professionals? An exploratory study. Midwifery. 2021;100:103030. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2021.103030 27. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Details of Treaty No.164. Published online. 1999; s/treaty/164 28. Townsend R, Manji A, Allotey J, et al. Can risk prediction models help us individualise stillbirth prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of published risk models. BJOG. 2021;128(2):214-224. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16487 29. Townsend R, Sileo FG, Allotey J, et al. Prediction of stillbirth: an umbrella review of evaluation of prognostic variables. BJOG. 2021;128(2):238-250. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16510 30. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around theworld. Lancet. 2017;390(10090):156- 168. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5 31. BergerTM. Decisions in the gray zone: Evidence-basedor culture- based? J Pediatr. 2010;156(1):7-9. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.08.044 32. Hallgrimsdottir HK, Benner BE. ‘Knowledge is power’: Risk and the moral responsibilities of the expectant mother at the turn of the twentieth century. Health Risk Soc. 2014;16(1):7-21. doi:10.1080/13698575.2013.866216 33. Kramer MR, Strahan AE, Preslar J, et al. Changing the conversation: applying a health equity framework to maternal mortality reviews. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(6):609.e1-609.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.057 34. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: It’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129:19-31. doi:10.1177/00333549141291S206 35. De Jonge A, Downe S, Page L, et al. Value based maternal and newborn care requires alignment of adequate resources with high value activities. BMCPregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):428. doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2512-3 36. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, et al. Socioeconomic status in health research. Onze size does not fit all. JAMA. 2005;294(22):2879. doi:10.1001/jama.294.22.2879 37. Kesavan K, Devaskar SU. Intrauterine growth restriction: postnatal monitoring and outcomes. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2019;66(2):403-423. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2018.12.009 38. Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, Williams M. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2):S609-S618. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.011 39. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587-603. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5 40. Reyes AM, Akanyirige PW, Wishart D, et al. Interventions addressing social needs in perinatal care: a systematic review. Heal Equity. 2021;5(1):100-118. doi:10.1089/heq.2020.0051 41. Glass TA, McAtee MJ. Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: extending horizons, envisioning the future. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(7):1650-1671. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.044 42. Victora CG, Barros AJD, Blumenberg C, et al. Association between ethnicity and under-5 mortality: analysis of data from demographic surveys from 36 low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Glob Heal. 2020;8(3):e352-e361. doi:10.1016/ S2214-109X(20)30025-5 43. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Inducing labour (update). Published 2021. https://www.nice. Accessed September 24, 2021. 44. Douglass C, Lokugamage A. Racial profiling for induction of labour: improving safety or perpetuating racism? BMJ. 2021;n2562. induction-of-labour-improving-safety-or-perpetuating-racism/ 45. Jenkins R. Rethinking Ethnicity, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008. 46. Stronks K, Snijder MB, Peters RJG, Prins M, Schene AH, Zwinderman AH. Unravelling the impact of ethnicity on health in Europe: the HELIUS study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):402. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-402 47. Ross PT, Hasrt-Johnson T, Santen SA, Bibler-Zaidi NL. Considerations for using race and ethnicity as quantitative variables in medical education research. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(5):318-323. doi:10.1007/s40037-020-00602-3 48. Bhopal R, Donaldson L. White, European, Western, Caucasian, or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity, and health. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(9):1303-1307. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.9.1303 49. Gagné T, Ghenadenik AE. Rethinking the relationship between socioeconomic status and health: challenging how socioeconomic status is currently used in health inequality research. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(1):53-56. doi:10.1177/1403494817744987 50. Helberg-Proctor A, Krumeich A, Meershoek A, Horstman K. The multiplicity and situationality of enacting ‘ethnicity’ in Dutch health research articles. Biosocieties. 2018;13(2):408-433. doi:10.1057/s41292-017-0077-9 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the publisher’s website. How to cite this article: Goodarzi B, Seijmonsbergen-Schermers A, van Rijn M, Shah N, Franx A, de Jonge A. Maternal characteristics as indications for routine induction of labor: A nationwide retrospective cohort study. Birth. 2022;00:1–13. doi:10.1111/birt.12628