Sentences with phrase «planned home birth compared»

No strong evidence about the benefits and safety of planned home birth compared to planned hospital birth for low - risk pregnant women.

In this group of women, the risk of severe blood loss after delivery (also known as postpartum haemorrhage) was 19.6 per 1,000 for a planned home birth compared with 37.6 per 1,000 for planned hospital births.

The rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 19.6 per 1,000 for a planned home birth compared with 37.6 per 1,000 for a planned hospital birth.

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

Not exact matches

Last Summer, ACOG «leaked» data from a study to be published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology stating that planned home births carried a 2 - 3 fold increase in neonatal death compared with hospital births.

Specifically, they should be informed that although the absolute risk may be low, planned home birth is associated with a twofold to threefold increased risk of neonatal death when compared with planned hospital birth» (ACOG, 2011).

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 major study published in the UK (Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, 2011) has examined the risks of planned home births, comparing them against planned deliveries in hospitals and midwife units for low risk women.

I really do not care if a woman wants to squat out a baby in the comfort of her home — I care that she is doing so as an act of informed free will and that she has been apprised of the risks of doing so (including the risks of 3 times or more the mortality rate for her baby compared to hospital birth and the risks of planned vaginal delivery in general).

until there are good, randomized controlled trials out there comparing planned home birth, planned birth center birth, and planned hospital birth, we are all going to continue to yell at one another.

«NCT's own detailed review of home birth concluded that, although the quality of comparative evidence on the safety of home birth is poor, there is no evidence that for women with a low risk of complications the likelihood of a baby dying is any higher if they plan for a home birth compared with planning for a hospital birth.»

Study results provide evidence that mortality outcomes in planned home birth are not significantly different compared to planned hospital birth, among 693,592 women with singleton births in the Netherlands.

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.

In a randomised controlled trial comparing community based care with standard hospital care a significant difference in caesarean section rates was found (13.3 % v 17.8 % respectively).29 Planning a home birth30 or booking for care at a midwife led birth centre is also associated with lower operative delivery rates.

Intrapartum and neonatal death at 0 — 7 days was observed in 0.15 % of planned home compared with 0.18 % in planned hospital births (crude relative risk 0.80, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.71 — 0.91).

Babies were significantly more likely to be breast fed at least once for planned births at home and at freestanding midwifery units compared with planned obstetric unit births.

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.

For healthy multiparous women with a low risk pregnancy, there are no differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between planned births at home or in a midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric unit

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.

Compared with the obstetric unit group, women planning to give birth at home were more likely to be older, white, have a fluent understanding of English, and live in a more socioeconomically advantaged area.

When the author compared 3385 planned home births with 806 402 low risk hospital births, he consistently found a non-significantly lower perinatal mortality in the home birth group.

We compared medical intervention rates for the planned home births with data from birth certificates for all 3 360 868 singleton, vertex births at 37 weeks or more gestation in the United States in 2000, as reported by the National Center for Health Statistics, 10 which acted as a proxy for a comparable low risk group.

Women who planned to give birth in a birth centre or at home were significantly more likely to have a normal labour and birth compared with women in the labour ward group.

Characteristics of 5418 women planning home births with certified professional midwives in the United States, 2000, compared with all singleton, vertex births at > = 37 weeks» gestation in the United States, 2000.

The rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 43.1 per 1,000 for a planned home compared with 43.3 per 1000 for a planned hospital birth.

More planned home births had 5 - minute Apgar score < 4 (0.37 %) compared to hospital births (0.24 %; aOR 1.87; 95 % CI 1.36 - 2.58) and neonatal seizure (0.06 % vs. 0.02 % respectively; aOR 3.08; 95 % CI 1.44 - 6.58).

The most recent large scale study comparing outcomes for mother and baby reported in the British Medical Journal last month showed that for women who had previously given birth, adverse outcomes were less common among planned home births (1 per 1,000) than among planned hospital births (2.3 per 1,000).

When compared with data on planned home birth in other industrialised countries, the perinatal death rate in Australia was much higher.

Data on home births were compared with all Australian births during 1985 - 90 and with planned home births elsewhere, identified from a literature search for comparable data from the 1980s and 1990s.

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

During 1985 - 90 there were just over 1.5 million births in Australia, giving a death rate (including late neonatal deaths) of 10.8 per 1000 compared with 7.1 per 1000 in planned home births (table 4).

Benefits and harms of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for low ‐ risk pregnant women.

Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low - risk pregnPlanned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low - risk pregnplanned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low - risk pregnancies.

In a previous study where we explored women's preferences for aspects of intrapartum care regarding planned place of birth we reported that women with a preference for a hospital birth — both midwife - led and obstetrician - led — found the possibility of pain relief treatment much more important compared to women with a preference for a home birth [18].

We compared planned hospital births with planned out - of - hospital births (an aggregate group of planned home births and planned birth - center births), including the out - of - hospital - to - hospital transfers.

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

Planned birth at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit generates incremental cost savings compared with planned birth in an obstetrPlanned birth at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit generates incremental cost savings compared with planned birth in an obstetrplanned birth in an obstetric unit

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).

The generalised linear model on costs showed that, even after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic confounders, planned birth in settings other than obstetric units remained cost saving compared with the reference category of the obstetric unit: savings averaged # 134, # 130, and # 310 for planned births in alongside midwifery units, free standing midwifery units, and at home, respectively (P < 0.001)(see appendix 3 on bmj.com).

Fig 2 Cost effectiveness plane: planned birth at home compared with planned birth in obstetric units for nulliparous low risk women without complicating conditions at start of care in labour

In this study of the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in England in women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour, we found that the cost of intrapartum and after birth care, and associated related complications, was less for births planned at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric unit.

An UpToDate review on «Planned home birth» (Declercq and Stotland, 2015) stated that «Large cohort studies using intent - to - treat analysis of midwife - attended, planned, out - of - hospital birth of low - risk women in developed countries have reported reduced rates of cesarean birth, perineal lacerations, and medical interventions, and similar rates of maternal and early perinatal morbidity and mortality compared to planned hospitalPlanned home birth» (Declercq and Stotland, 2015) stated that «Large cohort studies using intent - to - treat analysis of midwife - attended, planned, out - of - hospital birth of low - risk women in developed countries have reported reduced rates of cesarean birth, perineal lacerations, and medical interventions, and similar rates of maternal and early perinatal morbidity and mortality compared to planned hospitalplanned, out - of - hospital birth of low - risk women in developed countries have reported reduced rates of cesarean birth, perineal lacerations, and medical interventions, and similar rates of maternal and early perinatal morbidity and mortality compared to planned hospitalplanned hospital birth.

More planned home births had 5 - minute Apgar score less than 4 (0.37 %) compared with hospital births (0.24 %; adjusted OR, 1.87; 95 % CI: 1.36 to 2.58) and neonatal seizure (0.06 % versus 0.02 %, respectively; adjusted OR, 3.08; 95 % CI: 1.44 to 6.58).

These investigators examined outcomes that were associated with planned home compared with hospital births.

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.

Women and their partners should be advised that the risk of PPH is higher among births planned to take place in hospital compared to births planned to take place at home, but that further research is needed to understand (a) whether the same pattern applies to the more life - threatening categories of PPH, and (b) why hospital birth is associated with increased odds of PPH.

They compared them to planned hospital births attended by registered midwives or physicians in which the mothers met the criteria for home birth.