MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124901761

A systematic review of women's experiences of planning a homebirth in consultation with maternity care providers

2020· review· en· W3124901761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia Mackin, Maria Healy, Olufikayo Bamidele

Bibliographic record

VenueUlster University Research Portal (Ulster University) · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaternity careNursingMedicineHealth carePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background<br/>A woman’s chosen place of birth impacts not only the type of birth, but also the number of unnecessary interventions that the mother and baby are exposed to during labour and birth. Lower rates of unnecessary interventions are experienced by women who give birth at home. These include oxytocin augmentation, episiotomy, epidural analgesia, instrumental vaginal birth and caesarean section. They are also less likely to experience 3rd or 4th degree perineal tear, maternal infection or postpartum haemorrhage. However, little is known regarding women’s actual experiences of engaging with maternity care providers to plan for a home birth. <br/>Aim: To synthesise findings from previous studies, which have reported on women’s experiences of planning a home birth in consultation with maternity care providers. <br/> Methods: Nine bibliographic databases were systematically searched using the search terms: Home birth, childbirth, planned home birth, pregnant women and home birth, experience and homebirth. Studies published in English Language between January 2015 and May 2020 were included. Conference abstracts lacking sufficient data were excluded. Relevant papers from back chaining references of papers evidenced within the RQIA Planning birth at home guideline and professional networks were included. We managed search results and deduplication with Endnote, Refworks and Covidence. Screening, quality appraisal and data extraction were done independently by two authors and conflicts were resolved by discussion and agreement. Data analysis is ongoing using thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden 2008). The review is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: Registration ID: CRD 42018095042 – updated 28th September 2020).<br/>Findings<br/>Search results yielded 586 papers. Following deduplication, title/abstract and full-text screening, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. The studies were qualitative and involved a total of 275 women aged 18 - 40 years old. The studies were conducted across nine countries: Australia, Brazil, USA, UK, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, Spain and Norway. Findings showed that preference for a natural birth served as a catalyst for women to be resilient in problem-solving, information-seeking and taking positive actions to actualise a planned home birth in consultation with their midwives. Their midwives’ competence, support and prioritisation of safety and woman-centred care also enhanced women’s confidence and positive experience of planning a home birth.<br/>Conclusions/Implications<br/>This review gives a more in-depth understanding of women’s information and support needs. In particular, the influence care providers can have on women’s plan to have a home birth has implications for service providers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUlster University Research Portal (Ulster University)Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207