Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11868639›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2002

Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia.

Patricia A Janssen, Shoo K Lee, Elizabeth M Ryan, Duncan J Etches, Duncan F Farquharson, Donlim Peacock, Michael C Klein

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Meconium aspiration syndrome: a comprehensive review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Factors Influencing the Accessibility of Maternal Health Service in Cambodia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  11. Apgar Scoring System in Brazil's Live Births Records: Differences between Home and Hospital Births.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2019
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Social Network Analysis Applied to a Historical Ethnographic Study Surrounding Home Birth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Patricia A JanssenCentre for Community Health and Health Evaluation Research, BC Research Institute for Children's and Women's Health, Vancouver. pjanssen@interchange.ubc.ca
Shoo K Lee
Elizabeth M Ryan
Duncan J Etches
Duncan F Farquharson
Donlim Peacock
Michael C Klein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choice to give birth at home with a regulated midwife in attendance became available to expectant women in British Columbia in 1998. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of home birth by comparing perinatal outcomes for planned home births attended by regulated midwives with those for planned hospital births.

methodsWe 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). Comparison subjects who were similar in their obstetric risk status were selected from hospitals in which the midwives who were conducting the home births had hospital privileges. Our study population included all home births that occurred between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 1999.

resultsWomen who gave birth at home attended by a midwife had fewer procedures during labour compared with women who gave birth in hospital attended by a physician. After adjustment for maternal age, lone parent status, income quintile, use of any versus no substances and parity, women in the home birth group were less likely to have epidural analgesia (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.27), be induced, have their labours augmented with oxytocin or prostaglandins, or have an episiotomy. Comparison of home births with hospital births attended by a midwife showed very similar and equally significant differences. The adjusted odds ratio for cesarean section in the home birth group compared with physician-attended hospital births was 0.3 (95% CI 0.22-0.43). Rates of perinatal mortality, 5-minute Apgar scores, meconium aspiration syndrome or need for transfer to a different hospital for specialized newborn care were very similar for the home birth group and for births in hospital attended by a physician. The adjusted odds ratio for Apgar scores lower than 7 at 5 minutes in the home birth group compared with physician-attended hospital births was 0.84 (95% CI 0.32-2.19).

interpretationThere was no increased maternal or neonatal risk associated with planned home birth under the care of a regulated midwife. The rates of some adverse outcomes were too low for us to draw statistical comparisons, and ongoing evaluation of home birth is warranted.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBritish ColumbiaChi-Square DistributionDelivery RoomsFemaleHome ChildbirthHumansLogistic ModelsMidwiferyPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID11868639
PMCPMC99310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.