Sentences with phrase «compare outcomes of births»

Declan Devane is a co-author in one of the included trials in this review (Begley 2011) Jane Sandall was and is principal investigator for two studies evaluating models of midwife - led continuity of care (Sandall 2001), and co-investigator on the «Birthplace in England Research Programme», an integrated programme of research designed to compare outcomes of births for women planned at home, in different types of midwifery units, and in hospital units with obstetric services.

Jane Sandall was and is principal investigator for two studies evaluating models of midwife - led continuity of care (Sandall 2001), and co-investigator on the «Birthplace in England Research Programme», an integrated programme of research designed to compare outcomes of births for women planned at home, in different types of midwifery units, and in hospital units with obstetric services.

Not exact matches

What I meant was the RTC isn't possible to truly compare outcomes (b / c women will choose where they want to give birth and so variables related to those types of women would not be controlled for), so different studies are going to point to different outcomes, and every study can be criticized.

Advise low ‑ risk nulliparous women that planning to give birth in a midwifery ‑ led unit (freestanding or alongside) is particularly suitable for them because the rate of interventions is lower and the outcome for the baby is no different compared with an obstetric unit.

1.1.2 Explain to both multiparous and nulliparous women that they may choose any birth setting (home, freestanding midwifery unit, alongside midwifery unit or obstetric unit), and support them in their choice of setting wherever they choose to give birth: Advise low ‑ risk multiparous women that planning to give birth at home or in a midwifery ‑ led unit (freestanding or alongside) is particularly suitable for them because the rate of interventions is lower and the outcome for the baby is no different compared with an obstetric unit.

... [T] here was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

A recent review of a number of scientific studies compared outcomes for women who had three kinds of labor support during birth: nursing staff support, family / friend support, and doula support.

Dr. Fisher believes that dispassionate, rigorous study of birth across all settings is more important than ever given disparities in women's access to trained and licensed care providers, current and future physician workforce issues, rising costs of health care, and unacceptably high rates of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries.

Women who planned a home birth were at reduced risk of all obstetric interventions assessed and were at similar or reduced risk of adverse maternal outcomes compared with women who planned to give birth in hospital accompanied by a midwife or physician.

Overall, there were no significant differences in the odds of the primary outcome for births planned in any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with planned births in obstetric units (table 3 ⇑).

For the restricted sample of women without any complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the odds of a primary outcome event were higher for births planned at home compared with planned obstetric unit births (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52) but there was no evidence of a difference for either freestanding or alongside midwifery units compared with obstetric units.

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies.

In the subgroup analysis stratified by parity, there was an increased incidence of the primary outcome for nulliparous women in the planned home birth group (weighted incidence 9.3 per 1000 births, 95 % confidence interval 6.5 to 13.1) compared with the obstetric unit group (weighted incidence 5.3, 3.9 to 7.3).

Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units).

There was no difference overall between birth settings in the incidence of the primary outcome (composite of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities), but there was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

We compared perinatal outcomes with those of studies of low risk hospital births in the United States.

Don't forget about the 2005 study that compared outcomes of CPM attended births and hospital births, where the results showed similar IP and neonatal death rates for both, but CPM attended births fared better in other categories.

When this 20 % risk of death is compared to the 0.02 % rate of cord prolapse during labor at homebirth that might have a better outcome if it happened in hospital, this means that a low risk woman has a 1000 times higher chance of having a life threatening complication either to her life or her fetus / newborns life at planned hospital birth, than if she plans to have an attended homebirth with a well - trained practitioner.

We evaluated the outcomes of Australian home births and compared these with all Australian births and planned home births elsewhere.

We categorized out - of - hospital and in - hospital births in Oregon according to the intended place of delivery and in comparing outcomes found that the risks for some adverse neonatal outcomes were increased among planned out - of - hospital births.

Families who choose homebirth have a much higher chance of enjoying a natural, physiologic birth, and a much lower chance of experiencing unnecessary medical procedures, with outcomes that are just as safe, compared to healthy mothers and babies birthing in hospital.

As part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007 — 2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife - led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician - led hospital birth (n = 182).

An odds ratio of more than 1 indicates that the risk of the outcome is increased with planned out - of - hospital birth as compared with planned hospital birth.

Outcomes were compared by planned place of birth: at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, or in obstetric units.

We aimed to compare pregnancy characteristics, outcomes and experiences of birth between these profiles.

The adjusted odds of the secondary maternal outcomes — namely, maternal morbidity avoided and «normal birth» — were significantly increased for planned births in all three non-obstetric unit settings compared with those planned in obstetric units.

In further analyses restricted to women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the adjusted odds of adverse perinatal outcomes were higher for births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52).

For the purposes of this economic evaluation, the forms were initially used in a related study funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) research for patient benefit programme «assessing the impact of a new birth centre on choice and outcome of maternity care in an inner city area,» which will be reported in full elsewhere, comparing the costs of care in a free standing midwifery unit with care in an obstetric unit in the same trust.16 The data collected included details of staffing levels, treatments, surgeries, diagnostic imaging tests, scans, drugs, and other resource inputs associated with each stage of the pathway through intrapartum and after birth care.

In order to draw any conclusion about the differences between home and hospital births from the Canadian study, the home birth outcomes should have been compared with hospital outcomes only of women satisfying the same exclusion criteria.

[3] Cheng YW, Snowden J, Caughey A. Neonatal outcomes associated with intended place of birth: birth centres and home birth compared to hospitals.

These findings follow earlier research by Janssen that demonstrated that planned home births resulted in fewer interventions and similar rates of adverse newborn outcomes compared to planned hospital births among women who met the criteria for home births.

For women who had previously given birth (parous women), the rate of severe outcomes for a planned home birth was 1 per 1000 compared with 2.3 per 1000 for a planned hospital birth.

It is relevant because the blog is retrospectively comparing idealized birth outcomes of white women in hospitals to a small cohort of homebirths with unclear race or socioeconomic status.

Dr Tuteur's point was that women of African descent are at higher risk of obstetric problems compared to other ethnic groups, that 1 in 6 women giving birth in the US is of African descent, and that this may explain disparity of outcome to some extent.

Outcomes of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004: a population - based register study.

In order to address the issue of safety of home birth in BC, we compared selected outcomes for planned home births attended by regulated midwives with those for planned hospital births attended by midwives and by physicians.

For this mixed up group of GD women a Cochrane review concluded: «There is insufficient evidence to clearly identify if there are differences in health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their babies when elective birth is undertaken compared to waiting for labour to start spontaneously or until 41 weeks» gestation if all is well.»

If you were truly interested in outcomes that may be attributed to place of birth, then you would want to compare cohorts that are as similar as possible in other ways.

We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians.

Our study showed that planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.

We compared them with the outcomes of all planned hospital births that met the criteria for home birth and were attended by the same cohort of midwives.

We compared the outcomes of 862 planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by either midwives (n = 571) or physicians (n = 743).

METHODS: We compared the outcomes of 862 planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by either midwives (n = 571) or physicians (n = 743).

This study compared breastfeeding outcomes in two groups of mothers whose babies had lost enough weight shortly after birth to be considered at risk.

Using this tool we compared the outcomes of planned home births with those of planned hospital births for primiparous and multiparous women after controlling for the confounding effects of social, medical, and obstetric background.

In this issue of the Journal, Snowden et al. 5 report outcomes for deliveries planned to occur at home or at a freestanding birth center, as compared with planned hospital births, by taking advantage of the recent addition of a field to the Oregon birth certificate that records the intended delivery venue for all births.

Analysis of Maternal and Fetal Outcomes by Birth Place — Members of the Research and Data task force are making plans for an analysis of maternal and fetal outcomes by birth place in the US, comparing existing MANAStats data on home and birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ Outcomes by Birth Place — Members of the Research and Data task force are making plans for an analysis of maternal and fetal outcomes by birth place in the US, comparing existing MANAStats data on home and birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ 80,Birth Place — Members of the Research and Data task force are making plans for an analysis of maternal and fetal outcomes by birth place in the US, comparing existing MANAStats data on home and birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ outcomes by birth place in the US, comparing existing MANAStats data on home and birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ 80,birth place in the US, comparing existing MANAStats data on home and birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ 80,birth center births with a matched cohort of low risk women who planned a hospital delivery (total sample size ~ 80,000).

Existing research appraisal tools do not always capture important elements of study design that are critical when comparing outcomes by planned place of birth.

The effect of study size, age groups at outcome measurement (comparing those aged 16 — 30 y with those aged ≥ 50 y), year of birth, the method of ascertainment of infant feeding status (whether contemporary or recalled over a period of ≥ 5 y) was examined by using meta - regression and sensitivity analysis.