ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2025
Birth "outside of guidance"-An exploration of a Birth Choices Clinic in the United Kingdom.
Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Birth "outside of guidance"-An exploration of a Birth Choices Clinic in the United Kingdom.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making around birthplace is complex and multifactorial. The role of clinicians is to provide unbiased, evidence-based information to support women and birthing people to make decisions based on what matters to them. Some decisions may fall outside of clinical guidance and recommendations. Birth Choices Clinics can provide an opportunity for extended discussion and personalized birthplace planning. This study aimed to explore the rationale behind choosing birthplace "outside of guidance" and examine the outcomes for women who attended a Birth Choices Clinic.
methodsThe study was descriptive using data extracted from clinical documentation and consultation. The data included demographic information, maternal characteristics, reason for choosing a midwifery-led birth setting, birthplace preference, and outcome.
resultsEighty-two women used the Birth Choices Clinic between April 2022 and February 2023 in one large maternity unit in the UK. Reasons for choosing birth in a midwifery-led setting included having access to a birthing pool, to reduce the chance of obstetric interventions and pragmatic reasons. Sixty-five percent of women experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth, 10% experienced an assisted vaginal birth, and 23% experienced a cesarean birth. Of the 33 women who ultimately commenced labor care in a midwifery-led setting, 76% (n = 25/33) birthed in this setting without complications. Transfer rates in labor were similar to those in a "low-risk" pregnant population. DISCUSSION: Birth choice clinics may facilitate an understanding of material risk and support individualizing birth planning. There is evidence that women changed their planned birthplace, possibly in recognition of a move along the risk spectrum.
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.