The Experience of Planned Home Birth: Views of the First 500 Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home birth remains a contentious issue in North America. Professional regulatory bodies are in conflict about the safety of home birth as an option for healthy women. The voices of women have largely been ignored in this debate. The purpose of this study is to report on the experiences of 559 women who had a planned home birth over a 2-year period in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: We asked all women in the Province of British Columbia who had planned for their birth to be at home with a regulated midwife in attendance to answer an open-ended question about positive and negative aspects of their birth. The qualitative method of interpretive description was used to understand what women believed to be the essence of their experience. RESULTS: Women felt strongly positive about their trust in their midwife's skill and knowledge, a sense of emotional support and empowerment attained through their relationship with the midwife, perceptions of relaxation in their own home, being informed and included in the planning of their care, and the amount of time the midwife spent with their family. They believed that the confidence arising from their intense preparation and partnership with their midwives permitted them to choreograph their birth experience to a degree that would not be possible in a formal setting. CONCLUSIONS: Women who planned a home birth with a registered midwife in British Columbia were overwhelmingly positive about their experience. Our qualitative report underscores the value women place on having the choice to give birth at home.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".