MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth

2005· review· en· W2167531217 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Hodnett, Soo Downe, Nadine Edwards, Denis Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChildbirthRelative riskConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialObstetricsStaffingMeta-analysisPregnancyLive birthNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Home-like birth settings have been established in or near conventional labour wards for the care of pregnant women who prefer and require little or no medical intervention during labour and birth. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effects of care in a home-like birth environment compared to care in a conventional labour ward. Secondary: to determine if the effects of birth settings are influenced by staffing or organizational models or geographical location of the birth centre. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (18 May 2004) and handsearched eight journals and two published conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of a home-like institutional birth environment to conventional hospital care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group were used. Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. Double data entry was performed. Results are presented using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 8677 women were included. No trials of freestanding birth centres were found. Between 29% and 67% of women allocated to home-like settings were transferred to standard care before or during labour. Allocation to a home-like setting significantly increased the likelihood of: no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (four trials; n = 6703; relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.40), spontaneous vaginal birth (five trials; n = 8529; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06), vaginal/perineal tears (four trials; n = 8415; RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.13), preference for the same setting the next time (one trial; n = 1230; RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65 to 1.98), satisfaction with intrapartum care (one trial; n = 2844; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.21), and breastfeeding initiation (two trials; n = 1431; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09) and continuation to six to eight weeks (two trials; n = 1431; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10). Allocation to a home-like setting decreased the likelihood of episiotomy (five trials; n = 8529; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). There was a trend towards higher perinatal mortality in the home-like setting (five trials; n = 8529; RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.38). No firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the effects of staffing or organizational models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to conventional institutional settings, home-like settings for childbirth are associated with modest benefits, including reduced medical interventions and increased maternal satisfaction. Caregivers and clients should be vigilant for signs of complications.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.012

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations113
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207