MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Implications of Home Births and Birth Centers: A Structured Review

2008· review· en· W2004328289 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCINAHLMaternity careHome birthMedicineMEDLINEHome ChildbirthPlace of birthFamily medicinePregnancyNursingPopulationChildbirthPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is widely perceived that home births and birth centers may help decrease the costs of maternity care for women with uncomplicated pregnancies and deliveries. This structured review examines the literature relating to the economic implications of home births and birth center care compared with hospital maternity care. METHODS: The bibliographic databases MEDLINE (from 1950), CINAHL (from 1982), EMBASE (from 1980), and an "in-house" database, Econ2, were searched for relevant English language publications using MeSH and free text terms. Data were extracted with respect to the study design, inclusion criteria, clinical and cost results, and details of what was included in the cost calculations. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and Canada. Two studies focused on home births versus other forms and locations of care, whereas nine focused on birth centers versus other forms and locations of care. Resource use was generally lower for women cared for at home and in birth centers due to lower rates of intervention, shorter lengths of stay, or both. However, this fact did not always translate into lower costs because, in the U.K. where many studies were conducted, more midwives of a higher grade were employed to manage the birth centers than are usually employed in maternity units, and because of costs of converting existing facilities into delivery rooms. The quality of much of the literature was poor, although no studies were excluded for this reason. Selection bias was likely to be a problem in those studies not based on randomized controlled trials because, even where birth center eligibility was applied throughout, women who choose to deliver at home or in a birth center are likely to be different in terms of expectations and approach from women choosing to deliver in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the paucity of economic literature relating to home births and birth centers. Differences in results between studies may be attributed to differences in health care systems, differences in methods used, and differences in costs included. Further economic research that involves detailed bottom-up costing of alternative options for place of birth and measures multiple outcomes, including women's preferences, would help address the question of whether out-of-hospital birth is beneficial in economic terms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it