SWEPIS – The Swedish Post-term Induction Study

The evidence on whether there is a benefit in inducing labour if a pregnancy would otherwise last beyond 41 or 42 weeks is far from clear.1

The SWEPIS study2, published in 2019, was designed to look at whether induction of labour at 41 weeks improves outcomes for mothers and babies with a low risk pregnancy compared with waiting till 42 weeks and inducing labour then if it has not already started (referred to as expectant management).

Studies which have looked at data from a large population of women suggest that there may be a small increase in the risk of stillbirth in later pregnancy. A recent review3 of population studies estimated that there was one additional stillbirth for every 604 pregnancies which lasted to 42 weeks compared with 41 weeks. There is limited evidence to show whether induction at an earlier point would help to avoid any of these additional stillbirths. The best evidence is from a meta-analysis4 which concluded that if 544 women had an induction before 42 weeks of pregnancy that would avoid one perinatal death. The authors of the review found no difference in any of the outcomes they measured whether the induction took place before or after 41 weeks of pregnancy, except that assisted births were more common with induction before 41 weeks than after.

The SWEPIS study was intended to recruit 10 038 women, which was calculated to be the number required to detect a statistically significant difference in the outcomes for the two groups. Even then, the authors were only expecting to be able to look for a difference in a ‘composite primary outcome’ which meant grouping together the total of stillbirths and neonatal deaths (referred to together as perinatal deaths) , and the number of babies showing signs of being in poor condition at birth or having various birth-associated health problems.

In fact the trial was stopped after recruiting only 2762 women (just over a quarter of the intended sample) because at that point there had been six perinatal deaths in the expectant management group (equalling about four deaths per 1000 pregnancies) and none in the induction group, which was calculated to be a significant difference.

Stopping the trial early means that the results are invalid. It is the equivalent of stopping a football match at half time because one team has already scored several goals, or a board game as someone has thrown several sixes. These extremes of statistical variation are to be expected to occur in some cases.

It is worth noting that the perinatal death rate was much higher than previous studies have found, and much higher than the authors expected to see. Because the trial was stopped early, there is no way of knowing whether this was due to chance with most of the perinatal deaths having happened to occur early on and in one group. It’s possible that had the trial continued the apparently high rate in the expectant management group compared to the induction group would have evened out or at least been reduced to the kind of level seen in other studies – but now we will never know.

It is also important to note that there was no significant difference between the two groups when looking at the ‘composite primary outcome’ as originally intended. Changing the intended measure means that an unwarranted value is attached to what may be a spurious result.

Despite saying “Although these results should be interpreted cautiously” and “It is not clear whether the results are broadly generalisable” the authors concluded that “induction of labour ought to be offered to women no later than at 41 weeks.” However, others may consider that this remains an open question – and of course the important word is “offered”.


  1. Chippington Derrick D. & Higson N. “Labour Induction at Term – How great is the risk of refusing it?” AIMS Journal 31 (1) 2019
  2. Wennerholm U-B et al “Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (Swedish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial” BMJ 2019; 367
  3. Muglu J. et al “Risks of stillbirth and neonatal death with advancing gestation at term: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of 15 million pregnancies.” PLOS Medicine July 2019
  4. Middleton P. et al Cochrane review: Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation 2020

We hope that this page is of interest, especially to our colleagues in the maternity services improvement community.

The AIMS Campaigns Team relies on Volunteers to carry out its work. If you would like to collaborate with us, are looking for further information about our work, or would like to join our team, please email campaigns@aims.org.uk.

Please consider supporting us by becoming an AIMS member or making a donation. We are a small charity that accepts no commercial sponsorship, in order to preserve our reputation for providing impartial, evidence-based information. You can make donations at Peoples Fundraising. To become an AIMS member or join our mailing list see Join AIMS

AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

Latest Content


« »

Just ‘birth’: the phenomenon of bir…

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Editor’s note: AIMS is honoured to present Mariamni’s research study in which she interviews 10 women who gave birth without a healthcare…

Read more

An interview with Dr Rebecca Moore…

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Interview by Alex Smith Hello Rebecca, thank you for agreeing to answer some questions about your work with Make Birth Better. I wonder i…

Read more

Postpartum: A short story

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Editor’s note: This is a fictional account of the state of mind of a mother suffering postnatal illness. As such, it is a powerful and di…

Read more


« »

The Foundation Stones for Supportin…

‘The Foundation Stones for Supporting the Physiological Process in Pregnancy and Birth’ is led by Alex Smith (AIMS Journal Editor and Helpline volunteer) supported by Deb…

Read more

AIMS Workshop: Focus on Resolution

Join us for the an interactive online AIMS workshop " Focus on Resolution " with Dr Rebecca Moore . Rebecca who is a Consultant Psychiatrist and founding member of Make B…

Read more

Next steps for NICE in England

This conference will discuss next steps for NICE in delivering innovation and supporting clinical practice in health and social care in England. It is bringing stakeholde…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

BICS Conference poster: AIMS Campai…

AIMS Campaigns Team volunteers are presenting a poster about our campaign for Physiology-Informed Maternity Services at the 2023 conference of the British Intrapartum Car…

Read more

Review: National Cohort study on in…

This is a review of the paper (https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004259%20 ) published on July 20, 2023 by researchers at St George’…

Read more

SWEPIS – The Swedish Post-term Indu…

The evidence on whether there is a benefit in inducing labour if a pregnancy would otherwise last beyond 41 or 42 weeks is far from clear. 1 The SWEPIS study 2 , publishe…

Read more