MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022244823 · doi:10.1353/pbm.0.0119

Birth Models that Work (review)

2009· article· en· W2022244823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marsden Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in biology and medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaternal mortality rateObstetrics and gynaecologyMortality rateObstetricsVaginal birthSection (typography)Birth rateDemographyWonderPopulationPregnancyResearch methodologySurgeryPsychologyHealth servicesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Birth Models that Work Marsden Wagner Birth Models That Work. Robbie Davis-Floyd, Lesley Barclay, Betty-Anne Daviss, and Jan Tritten. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2009. Pp. 496 $27.50 (paper). Today in the United States, one third of all pregnant women do not give birth: their babies are cut out by an obstetrician/surgeon through major abdominal surgery—cesarean section. This means that of the 4 million births every year, there are over 1.2 million cesarean sections. The reported maternal mortality rate for the United States is 15 per 100,000 births (the actual rate is unquestionably higher). Since the maternal mortality for cesarean section is over double that for vaginal birth (Hall and Bewley 1999), 240 or 46% of the 520 annual reported maternal deaths are associated with cesarean section. No wonder the U. S. maternal mortality rate is higher than in over 30 other countries. [End Page 642] But if the U. S. cesarean section rate were 15%—the highest acceptable rate according to WHO and the best scientific evidence (Betrán et al. 2007)—there would be half as many cesarean sections annually and 460 maternal deaths rather than 520: 60 fewer deaths. Thus the present rate of cesarean births in the United States means a minimum of 600,000 unnecessary cesareans a year (over 1,640 unnecessary every day), leading to a minimum of 60 excessive, unnecessary maternal deaths a year (over one unnecessary death every week). How did we get to this tragic state of affairs in the United States? As I lay out in detail in my recent book Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to put Women and Children First (Wagner 2008), it is not because we have bad health professionals—they are excellent—but because of a bizarre maternity care system not found anywhere else in the world, where surgeons (obstetricians) insist on managing normal (low-risk) birth. Everywhere else it is midwives who attend normal birth. How do we get out of this maternity mess? Are there better, safer, cheaper ways of managing childbirth? There are forces at work in the United States to prevent any change in the present obstetric-lead, hospital-based model, which is the greatest source of income for obstetricians and hospitals. These forces claim, without any evidence, that changes would be dangerous, unsafe, and expensive. Here is where this new book—Birth Models That Work, edited by Davis-Floyd, et al.—is of enormous value. All of the models presented in this volume are ideologically and practically based on the midwifery (humanistic/holistic) model of care and can be adopted and applied by any and all birth practitioners. The models have been working for some time and have all been proven to be safe, to improve the physiological, psychological, and social outcomes of pregnancy and birth, and to save money for systems and families. The birth models that work are broken into four section in the book: • large-scale systems, including the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ontario, Canada, and Samoa; • local models in developed countries, including two U. S. midwifery practices, a freestanding birth center in England, a transformed hospital maternity service in Australia, and maternity homes in Japan; • models in developing countries, including an obstetric practice using midwives and Doulas in Brazil, a school of midwifery in Mexico, and two out-of-hospital birth centers in the Philippines; • a final section on making models work, using examples from the United States and Brazil. Birth Models That Work is a major contribution to the global struggle for control of women's bodies and their giving birth, and it should be read by all obstetricians, midwives, obstetric nurses, pregnant women, and anyone else with interest in maternity care. It documents the worldwide success of programs for [End Page 643] pregnancy and birth that honor the women and put them in the center and in control of their own reproductive lives. The book concludes: Birth models that work—expose the need for the total reform of existing dysfunctional, hegemonic models. They issue a clarion call to global health organizations, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to replace birth models...

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives in biology and medicineSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207