MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2008· review· en· W2004328289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Henderson, Stavros Petrou

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207