Search

Objective: There are lingering concerns in the United States about home birth. We used 2 large (n = 50,043; n = 62,984), national community birth registries to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned home versus planned birth center births., Methods: To compare outcomes by intended birth site, we used logistic regressions, controlling for demographic and pregnancy risk variables. Maternal outcomes included intrapartum or postpartum transfer to hospital, hospitalization, cesarean, and hemorrhage; neonatal outcomes included neonatal transfer, hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and intrapartum or neonatal death. Analyses were conducted twice, once in each dataset., Results: Individuals who planned home births had a lower incidence of all types of transfers, compared with those who planned birth center births, but in one dataset only, experienced more cesareans [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (1.02-1.70); 0.95 (0.88-1.03)]. Planned home birth was associated with lower adjusted odds of maternal hospitalization in one dataset but not the other [0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)], and was not associated with hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes likewise were either not associated with a planned birthplace or suggested home birth was safer: hospitalization [0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], neonatal intensive care unit admission [0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]. There was no observable association with intrapartum or neonatal death: 1.07 (0.68-1.67; only calculated once because of small numbers of events)., Conclusions: Planned home births are as safe as planned birth center births for low-risk pregnancies. Current guidelines advising against planned home births are not supported by these data., Competing Interests: M.C.: Honoraria for talks about waterbirth, midwifery, and birthplace. J.B.: Oregon Health & Science University School of Nursing, statistics consultant. S.V.: Honoraria for talks about midwifery and birthplace. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Fetal macrosomia is associated with negative outcomes, although less is known about how severities of macrosomia influence these outcomes. Planned community births in the United States have higher rates of gestational age-adjusted macrosomia than planned hospital births, providing a novel population to examine macrosomia morbidity., Methods: Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with grade 1 (4000-4499 g), grade 2 (4500-4999 g), and grade 3 (≥5000 g) macrosomia were compared to normal birthweight newborns (2500-3999 g), using data from the MANA Statistics Project-a registry of planned community births, 2012-2018 (n = 68 966). Outcomes included perineal trauma, postpartum hemorrhage, cesarean birth, neonatal birth injury, shoulder dystocia, neonatal respiratory distress, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay >24 hours, and perinatal death. Logistic regressions controlled for parity and mode of birth, obesity, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia., Results: Sixteen percent of the sample were grade 1 macrosomic, 3.3% were grade 2 macrosomic, and 0.4% were grade 3 macrosomic. Macrosomia grades 1-3 were associated in a dose-response fashion with higher odds of all outcomes, compared to non-macrosomia. The adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for postpartum hemorrhage for grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 macrosomia vs normal birthweight were 1.75 (1.56-1.96), 2.12 (1.70-2.63), and 5.18 (3.47-7.74), respectively. Other outcomes had similar patterns., Discussion: The adjusted odds of negative outcomes increase as grade of macrosomia increases in planned community births; results are comparable with the published literature. Pre-birth fetal weight estimation is imprecise; prenatal supports and shared decision-making processes should reflect these complexities., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

There has been a small, but significant, increase in community births (home and birth-center births) in the United States in recent years. The rate increased by 20% from 2004 to 2008, and another 59% from 2008 to 2012, though the overall rate is still low at less than 2%. Although the United States is not the only country with a large majority of births occurring in the hospital, there are other high-resource countries where home and birth-center birth are far more common and where community midwives (those attending births at home and in birth centers) are far more central to the provision of care. In many such countries, the differences in perinatal outcomes between hospital and community births are small, and there are lower rates of maternal morbidity in the community setting. In the United States, perinatal mortality appears to be higher for community births, though there has yet to be a national study comparing outcomes across settings that controls for planned place of birth. Rates of intervention, including cesarean delivery, are significantly higher in hospital births in the United States. Compared with the United States, countries that have higher rates of community births have better integrated systems with clearer national guidelines governing risk criteria and planned birth location, as well as transfer to higher levels of care. Differences in outcomes, systems, approaches, and client motivations are important to understand, because they are critical to the processes of person-centered care and to risk reduction across all birth settings.

Background: Approximately 22% of women in the United States live in rural areas with limited access to obstetric care. Despite declines in hospital-based obstetric services in many rural communities, midwifery care at home and in free standing birth centers is available in many rural communities. This study examines maternal and neonatal outcomes among planned home and birth center births attended by midwives, comparing outcomes for rural and nonrural women., Methods: Using the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 dataset of 18 723 low-risk, planned home, and birth center births, rural women (n = 3737) were compared to nonrural women. Maternal outcomes included mode of delivery (cesarean and instrumental delivery), blood transfusions, severe events, perineal lacerations, or transfer to hospital and a composite (any of the above). The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of early neonatal intensive care unit or hospital admissions (longer than 1 day), and intrapartum or neonatal deaths. Analysis involved multivariable logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographics, antepartum, and intrapartum risk factors., Results: Rural women had different risk profiles relative to nonrural women and reduced risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in bivariable analyses. However, after adjusting for risk factors and confounders, there were no significant differences for a composite of maternal (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.05 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.93-1.19]) or neonatal (aOR 1.13 [95% CI 0.87-1.46]) outcomes between rural and nonrural pregnancies., Conclusion: Among this sample of low-risk women who planned midwife-led community births, no increased risk was detected by rural vs nonrural status., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: There is little agreement on who is a good candidate for community (home or birth center) birth in the United States., Methods: Data on n=47 394 midwife-attended, planned community births come from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project. Logistic regression quantified the independent contribution of 10 risk factors to maternal and neonatal outcomes. Risk factors included: primiparity, advanced maternal age, obesity, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, postterm pregnancy, twins, breech presentation, history of cesarean and vaginal birth, and history of cesarean without history of vaginal birth. Models controlled additionally for Medicaid, race/ethnicity, and education., Results: The independent contributions of maternal age and obesity were quite modest, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) less than 2.0 for all outcomes: hospital transfer, cesarean, perineal trauma, postpartum hemorrhage, low/very-low Apgar, maternal or neonatal hospitalization, NICU admission, and fetal/neonatal death. Breech was strongly associated with morbidity and fetal/neonatal mortality (AOR 8.2, 95% CI, 3.7-18.4). Women with a history of both cesarean and vaginal birth fared better than primiparas across all outcomes; however, women with a history of cesarean but no prior vaginal births had poor outcomes, most notably fetal/neonatal demise (AOR 10.4, 95% CI, 4.8-22.6). Cesarean births were most common in the breech (44.7%), preeclampsia (30.6%), history of cesarean without vaginal birth (22.1%), and primipara (11.0%) groups., Discussion: The outcomes of labor after cesarean in women with previous vaginal deliveries indicates that guidelines uniformly prohibiting labor after cesarean should be reconsidered for this subgroup. Breech presentation has the highest rate of adverse outcomes supporting management of vaginal breech labor in a hospital setting., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Women who seek vaginal birth after cesarean delivery may find limited in-hospital options. Increasing numbers of women in the United States are delivering by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery out-of-hospital. Little is known about neonatal outcomes among those who deliver by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in- vs out-of-hospital., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes between women who deliver via vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in-hospital vs out-of-hospital (home and freestanding birth center)., Study Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2007-2010 linked United States birth and death records to compare singleton, term, vertex, nonanomolous, and liveborn neonates who delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in- or out-of-hospital. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to estimate unadjusted, absolute, and relative birth-setting risk differences. Analyses were stratified by parity and history of vaginal birth. Sensitivity analyses that involved 3 transfer status scenarios were conducted., Results: Of women in the United States with a history of cesarean delivery (n=1,138,813), only a small proportion delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery with the subsequent pregnancy (n=109,970; 9.65%). The proportion of home vaginal birth after cesarean delivery births increased from 1.78-2.45%. A pattern of increased neonatal morbidity was noted in unadjusted analysis (neonatal seizures, Apgar score <7 or <4, neonatal seizures), with higher morbidity noted in the out-of-hospital setting (neonatal seizures, 23 [0.02%] vs 6 [0.19%; P<.001]; Apgar score <7, 2859 [2.68%] vs 139 [4.42%; P<.001; Apgar score <4, 431 [0.4%] vs 23 [0.73; P=.01]). A similar, but nonsignificant, pattern of increased risk was observed for neonatal death and ventilator support among those neonates who were born in the out-of-hospital setting. Multivariate regression estimated that neonates who were born in an out-of-hospital setting had higher odds of poor outcomes (neonatal seizures [adjusted odds ratio, 8.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-25.4); Apgar score <7 [adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.96]; Apgar score <4 [adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.79]). Although the odds of neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-6.05; P=.18) and ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-2.46) appeared to be increased in out-of-hospital settings, findings did not reach statistical significance. Women birthing their second child by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in out-of-hospital settings had higher odds of neonatal morbidity and death compared with women of higher parity. Women who had not birthed vaginally prior to out-of-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery had higher odds of neonatal morbidity and mortality compared with women who had birthed vaginally prior to out-of-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Sensitivity analyses generated distributions of plausible alternative estimates by outcome., Conclusion: Fewer than 1 in 10 women in the United States with a previous cesarean delivery delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in any setting, and increasing proportions of these women delivered in an out-of-hospital setting. Adverse outcomes were more frequent for neonates who were born in an out-of-hospital setting, with risk concentrated among women birthing their second child and women without a history of vaginal birth. This information urgently signals the need to increase availability of in-hospital vaginal birth after cesarean delivery and suggests that there may be benefit associated with increasing options that support physiologic birth and may prevent primary cesarean delivery safely. Results may inform evidence-based recommendations for birthplace among women who seek vaginal birth after cesarean delivery., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the United States, the number of planned home vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs) has increased. This study describes the maternal and neonatal outcomes for women who planned a VBAC at home with midwives who were contributing data to the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 cohort during the years 2004-2009., Method: Two subsamples were created from the parent cohort: 12,092 multiparous women without a prior cesarean and 1,052 women with a prior cesarean. Descriptive statistics were calculated for maternal and neonatal outcomes for both groups. Sensitivity analyses comparing women with a prior vaginal birth and those who were at the lowest risk with various subgroups in the parent cohort were also conducted., Results: Women with a prior cesarean had a VBAC rate of 87 percent, although transfer rates were higher compared with women without a prior cesarean (18% vs 7%, p < 0.001). The most common indication for transfer was failure to progress. Women with a prior cesarean had higher proportions of blood loss, maternal postpartum infections, uterine rupture, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions than those without a prior cesarean. Five neonatal deaths (4.75/1,000) occurred in the prior cesarean group compared with 1.24/1,000 in multiparas without a history of cesarean (p = 0.015)., Conclusion: Although there is a high likelihood of a vaginal birth at home, women planning a home VBAC should be counseled regarding maternal transfer rates and potential for increased risk to the newborn, particularly if uterine rupture occurs in the home setting., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Women's heightened interest in choice of birthplace and increased rates of planned home birth in the United States have been well documented, yet there remains significant public and professional debate about the ethics of planned home birth in jurisdictions where care is not clearly integrated across birth settings. Simultaneously, the quality of interprofessional interactions is recognized as a predictor of health outcomes during obstetric events. When care is transferred across birth settings, confusion and conflict among providers with respect to roles and responsibilities can adversely affect both outcomes and the experience of care for women and newborns. This article reviews findings of recent North American studies that examine provider attitudes toward planned home birth, differing concepts of safety of birthplace as reported by women and providers, and sources of conflict among maternity care providers during transfer from home to hospital. Emerging evidence and clinical exemplars can inform the development of systems for seamless transfer of women and newborns from planned home births to hospital and improve experience and perceptions of safety among families and providers. Three successful models in the United States that have enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation and coordination of care across birth settings are described. Finally, best practice guidelines for roles, communication, and mutual accommodation among all participating providers when transfer occurs are introduced. Research, health professional education, and policy recommendations for incorporation of key components into existing health care systems in the United States are included., (© 2014 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

The purpose of this study was to explore the contested space of home-to-hospital transfers that occur during labor or in the immediate postpartum period, as a means of identifying the mechanisms that maintain philosophical and practice divides between homebirth midwives and hospital-based clinicians in the United States. Using data collected from open-ended, semistructured interviews, participant observation, and reciprocal ethnography, we identified six key themes-three from each provider type. Collectively, providers' narratives illuminate the central stressors that characterize home-to-hospital transfers, and from these, we identify three larger sociopolitical mechanisms that we argue are functioning to maintain fractured articulations at the time of transfer. These mechanisms impede efficient and mutually respectful interactions and can result in costly delays. However, they also contain the seeds of possible solutions, and thus are important starting points for developing an integrated maternity system premised on mutual accommodation and seamless articulations across all delivery locations.

Introduction: In 2004, the Midwives Alliance of North America's (MANA's) Division of Research developed a Web-based data collection system to gather information on the practices and outcomes associated with midwife-led births in the United States. This system, called the MANA Statistics Project (MANA Stats), grew out of a widely acknowledged need for more reliable data on outcomes by intended place of birth. This article describes the history and development of the MANA Stats birth registry and provides an analysis of the 2.0 dataset's content, strengths, and limitations., Methods: Data collection and review procedures for the MANA Stats 2.0 dataset are described, along with methods for the assessment of data accuracy. We calculated descriptive statistics for client demographics and contributing midwife credentials, and assessed the quality of data by calculating point estimates, 95% confidence intervals, and kappa statistics for key outcomes on pre- and postreview samples of records., Results: The MANA Stats 2.0 dataset (2004-2009) contains 24,848 courses of care, 20,893 of which are for women who planned a home or birth center birth at the onset of labor. The majority of these records were planned home births (81%). Births were attended primarily by certified professional midwives (73%), and clients were largely white (92%), married (87%), and college-educated (49%). Data quality analyses of 9932 records revealed no differences between pre- and postreviewed samples for 7 key benchmarking variables (kappa, 0.98-1.00)., Discussion: The MANA Stats 2.0 data were accurately entered by participants; any errors in this dataset are likely random and not systematic. The primary limitation of the 2.0 dataset is that the sample was captured through voluntary participation; thus, it may not accurately reflect population-based outcomes. The dataset's primary strength is that it will allow for the examination of research questions on normal physiologic birth and midwife-led birth outcomes by intended place of birth., (© 2014 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

Introduction: Between 2004 and 2010, the number of home births in the United States rose by 41%, increasing the need for accurate assessment of the safety of planned home birth. This study examines outcomes of planned home births in the United States between 2004 and 2009., Methods: We calculated descriptive statistics for maternal demographics, antenatal risk profiles, procedures, and outcomes of planned home births in the Midwives Alliance of North American Statistics Project (MANA Stats) 2.0 data registry. Data were analyzed according to intended and actual place of birth., Results: Among 16,924 women who planned home births at the onset of labor, 89.1% gave birth at home. The majority of intrapartum transfers were for failure to progress, and only 4.5% of the total sample required oxytocin augmentation and/or epidural analgesia. The rates of spontaneous vaginal birth, assisted vaginal birth, and cesarean were 93.6%, 1.2%, and 5.2%, respectively. Of the 1054 women who attempted a vaginal birth after cesarean, 87% were successful. Low Apgar scores (< 7) occurred in 1.5% of newborns. Postpartum maternal (1.5%) and neonatal (0.9%) transfers were infrequent. The majority (86%) of newborns were exclusively breastfeeding at 6 weeks of age. Excluding lethal anomalies, the intrapartum, early neonatal, and late neonatal mortality rates were 1.30, 0.41, and 0.35 per 1000, respectively., Discussion: For this large cohort of women who planned midwife-led home births in the United States, outcomes are congruent with the best available data from population-based, observational studies that evaluated outcomes by intended place of birth and perinatal risk factors. Low-risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes., (© 2014 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.)

In this article, I examine the clinical practices engaged in by U.S. homebirth midwives and their clients from the beginning of pregnancy through to the immediate postpartum period, deconstructing them for their symbolic and ritual content. Using data collected from open-ended, semistructured interviews and intensive participant-observation, I describe the roles ritual plays in the construction, performance, and maintenance of birth at home as a transgressive rite of passage. As midwives ritually elaborate approaches to care to capitalize on their semiotic power to transmit a set of counterhegemonic values to participants, they are attempting, quite self-consciously, to peel away the fictions of medicalized birthing care. Their goal: to expose strong and capable women who "grow" and birth babies outside the regulatory and self-regulatory processes naturalized by modern, technocratic obstetrics. Homebirth practices are, thus, not simply evidence-based care strategies. They are intentionally manipulated rituals of technocratic subversion designed to reinscribe pregnant bodies and to reterritorialize childbirth spaces (home) and authorities (midwives and mothers).