![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojA couple of days ago I posted a link on Facebook to CMAJ's cover for this month, 
, talking about homebirth as a safe option. Was going to scan in the articles inside and share them, but then realized CMAJ is online. So, here's links to the articles themselves, for the curious:
Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician, by Patricia A. Janssen, PhD, Lee Saxell, MA, Lesley A. Page, PhD, Michael C. Klein, MD, Robert M. Liston, MD and Shoo K. Lee, MBBS PhD.
Excerpts from the abstract:
Background: Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians.
Methods: (I found it cool; go to article if your eyes are unlikely to glaze over when exposed to a paragraph of numbers)
Results: (I found it cool; go to article if your eyes are unlikely to glaze over when exposed to a much longer paragraph of more obscure numbers)
Interpretation: Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.
, talking about homebirth as a safe option. Was going to scan in the articles inside and share them, but then realized CMAJ is online. So, here's links to the articles themselves, for the curious:- The safety of home birth: Is the evidence good enough?, by Helen McLachlan, PhD and Della Forster, PhD.
Excerpts:
Few issues in maternity care remain as contested and unresolved as the debate surrounding the safety of home birth versus hospital birth. The American, Australian and New Zealand colleges of obstetricians and gynecologists oppose home birth. Home birth in uncomplicated pregnancies is supported by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the Royal College of Midwives in the United Kingdom and by the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian colleges of midwives. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada recognizes the need for further research.
...
Key points- Different professional bodies have taken conflicting positions on home birth.
- Although policy-makers support choice in childbirth, choices for home birth are often limited.
- Better evidence on the safety of home birth is needed, ideally from randomized controlled trials.
- The available evidence supports planned home birth for women at low risk who are cared for by qualified midwives with access to medical backup.
- Different professional bodies have taken conflicting positions on home birth.
Excerpts from the abstract:
Background: Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians.
Methods: (I found it cool; go to article if your eyes are unlikely to glaze over when exposed to a paragraph of numbers)
Results: (I found it cool; go to article if your eyes are unlikely to glaze over when exposed to a much longer paragraph of more obscure numbers)
Interpretation: Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.
