Sentences with phrase «risk nulliparous»

Parsons Bidewell, and Nagy (2006) studied the effect of eating in early labor on maternal and infant outcomes in a prospective comparative trial of 176 low - risk nulliparous Australian women.

This cost effectiveness information, however, should be considered in the light of an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned home birth in low risk nulliparous women.

Characteristics of low - risk nulliparous women who initially preferred a midwife - led home or hospital birth or an obstetrician - led birth

Low - risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife - led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician - led care (OR 0.41 95 % CI 0.25 - 0.66).

We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study among low - risk nulliparous women who started their pregnancy in midwife - led care or in obstetrician - led care.

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.

Not exact matches

: «1.1.1 Explain to both multiparous and nulliparous women who are at low risk of complications that giving birth is generally very safe for both the woman and her baby.

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.

For healthy nulliparous women with a low risk pregnancy, the risk of an adverse perinatal outcome seems to be higher for planned births at home, and the intrapartum transfer rate is high in all settings other than an obstetric unit

Our results support a policy of offering healthy nulliparous and multiparous women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting.

For nulliparous women the rate for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 2.3 versus 3.1 per 1000 births (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95 % confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06), relative risk reduction 25.7 % (95 % confidence interval − 0.1 % to 53.5 %), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 43.1 versus 43.3 (0.92, 0.85 to 1.00 and 0.5 %, − 6.8 % to 7.9 %), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 29.0 versus 29.8 (0.91, 0.83 to 1.00 and 2.8 %, − 6.1 % to 11.8 %).

For nulliparous women, there is some evidence that planning birth at home is associated with a higher risk of an adverse perinatal outcome.

We therefore assigned nulliparous women the same risk of metabolic disease as women who breastfed for 6 or more months.

We used multivariable logistic - regression models to adjust for potential confounders, including maternal race or ethnic group (non-Hispanic white vs. other), parity (nulliparous vs. multiparous), insurance status (public or none vs. other), extent of prenatal care (≥ 5 visits vs. < 5 visits), advanced maternal age (≥ 35 years vs. < 35 years), maternal education (> 12 years vs. ≤ 12 years), history or no history of cesarean delivery, and a composite marker of conditions that confer increased medical risk.

There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a cost effectiveness threshold of # 20000 declining to 0.63.

For nulliparous low risk women, planned birth at home is still likely to be the most cost effective option but is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes.

For nulliparous low risk women, planned birth at home generates incremental cost savings but increases adverse perinatal outcomes

There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a threshold of # 20000 declining to 0.63.

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

The researchers recommend that «Nulliparous [first baby] women should be made aware of this, as well as potential risks of expectant management during counselling.»

In fact, the absolute risk risk of birth - related perinatal death associated with VBAC is extremely low and comparable to the risk for nulliparous women in labor.

These risks may differ among different women (for instance, nulliparous vs. multiparous), and women should understand what the risks are so that they can make informed decisions about their personal circumstances.

Haugen, M., Brantsaeter, A. L., Trogstad, L., Alexander, J., Roth, C., Magnus, P., and Meltzer, H. M. Vitamin D supplementation and reduced risk of preeclampsia in nulliparous women.

Though having children and breast - feeding are known to lower a woman's risk of certain health issues — breast cancer is one — it doesn't mean a woman with a different reproductive history is less healthy: «Our data did not suggest that nulliparous [non-childbearing] women had poorer health as their BMI, physical activity levels, and smoking status were similar to parous women.»

The incidence of occurrence has been reported to be 9 - 15.2 % with aged, nulliparous bitches most at risk.