ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2021
The opportunity costs of birth in Australia: Hospital resource savings for a post-COVID-19 era.
Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Childbirth Settings: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Cost analysis of planned out-of-hospital births in Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Fear is the Path to the Dark Side: Unsafe Delivery, One of the Consequences of Fear of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic, A Case Report.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2021Article
- The opportunity costs of birth in Australia: Hospital resource savings for a post-COVID-19 era.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 caused significant disruptions to health systems globally; however, restricting the family presence during birth saw an increase in women considering community birth options. This study aimed to quantify the hospital resource savings that could occur if all low-risk women in Australia gave birth at home or in birth centers.
methodsA whole-of-population linked administrative data set containing all women (n = 44 498) who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2015 was reweighted to represent all Australian women giving birth in 2017. A static microsimulation model of woman and infant health service resource use was created based on 2017 data. The model was comprised of a base model, representing "current" care, and a counterfactual model, representing hypothetical scenarios where all low-risk Australian women gave birth at home or in birth centers.
resultsIf all low-risk women gave birth at home in 2017, cesarean rates would have reduced from 13.4% to 2.7%. Similarly, there would have been 860 fewer inpatient bed days and 10.1 fewer hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. If all women gave birth in birth centers, cesarean rates would have reduced to 6.7%. In addition, over 760 inpatient bed days would have been saved along with 5.6 hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births.
conclusionsSignificant health resource savings could occur by shifting low-risk births from hospitals to home birth and birth center services. Greater examination of Australian women's preferences for home birth and birth center birth models of care is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.