Perinatal outcomes of planned home birth after cesarean and planned hospital vaginal birth after cesarean at term gestation in British Columbia, Canada: A retrospective population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective population-based cohort study was to determine whether the mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes differ between planned home VBAC (HBAC) and planned hospital VBAC. METHODS: All midwifery clients with at least one prior cesarean birth delivered between April 2000 and March 2017 (N = 4741; n = 4180 planned hospital VBAC, n = 561 planned HBAC) were included. Multivariate binomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to calculate the odds ratios adjusted for the potential covariates. The primary outcome was the mode of delivery, and the secondary outcomes were uterine rupture/dehiscence, postpartum hemorrhage, nonintact perineum, episiotomy, obstetric trauma, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal resuscitation requiring positive pressure ventilation, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and a composite outcome of severe neonatal mortality and morbidity and maternal mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Planned HBAC was associated with a significant 39% decrease in the odds of having a cesarean birth (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79) adjusting for the prepregnancy and pregnancy characteristics. Severe adverse outcomes were relatively rare in both settings; thus, our study did not have sufficient power to detect the true differences associated with the place of birth. CONCLUSIONS: Home births for those eligible for VBACs and attended by registered midwives within an integrated health system were associated with higher vaginal birth rates compared with planned hospital VBACs. Severe adverse outcomes were relatively rare in both settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".