Home birth integration into the health care systems of eleven international jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop assessment criteria that could be used to examine the level of integration of home birth within larger health care systems in developed countries across 11 international jurisdictions. METHODS: An expert panel developed criteria and a definition to assess home birth integration within health care systems. We selected jurisdictions based on the publications that were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis on planned place of birth. We sent the authors of the included publications a questionnaire about home birth practitioners and practices in their respective health care system at the time of their studies. We searched published peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and gray literature, and the websites of professional bodies to document information about home birth integration in each jurisdiction based on our criteria. Where information was lacking, we contacted experts in the field from the relevant jurisdiction. RESULTS: Home birth is well integrated into the health care system in British Columbia (Canada), England, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ontario (Canada), and Washington State (USA). Home birth is less well integrated into the health care system in Australia, Japan, Norway, and Sweden. CONCLUSIONS: This paper is the first to propose criteria for the evaluation of home birth integration within larger maternity care systems. Application of these criteria across 11 international jurisdictions indicates differences in the recognition and training of home birth practitioners, in access to hospital facilities, and in the supplies and equipment available at home births, which give rise to variation in the level of integration across different settings. Standardized criteria for the evaluation of systems integration are essential for interpreting planned home birth outcomes that emerge from contextual differences.
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 | 0.060 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".