MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth

2010· review· en· W4241644278 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Hodnett, Soo Downe, Denis Walsh, Julie Weston

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthMedicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialStaffingConfidence intervalBreastfeedingPregnancyBedroomObstetricsPediatricsNursingFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alternative institutional settings have been established for the care of pregnant women who prefer and require little or no medical intervention. The settings may offer care throughout pregnancy and birth, or only during labour; they may be part of hospitals or freestanding entities. Specially designed labour rooms include bedroom-like rooms, ambient rooms, and Snoezelen rooms. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effects of care in an alternative institutional birth environment compared to care in a conventional institutional setting. Secondary: to determine if the effects of birth settings are influenced by staffing, architectural features, organizational models or geographical location. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials which compared the effects of an alternative institutional maternity care setting to conventional hospital care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. We performed double data entry and have presented results using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials involving 10684 women met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials of freestanding birth centres or Snoezelen rooms. Allocation to an alternative setting increased the likelihood of: no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (five trials, n = 7842; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.35); spontaneous vaginal birth (eight trials; n = 10,218; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06); breastfeeding at six to eight weeks (one trial, n = 1147; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06); and very positive views of care (two trials, n = 1207; RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.15). Allocation to an alternative setting decreased the likelihood of epidural analgesia (seven trials, n = 9820; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89); oxytocin augmentation of labour (seven trials, n = 10,020; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91); and episiotomy (seven trials, n = 9944; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90). There was no apparent effect on serious perinatal or maternal morbidity/mortality, other adverse neonatal outcomes, or postpartum hemorrhage. No firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the effects of variations in staffing, organizational models, or architectural characteristics of the alternative settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to conventional settings, hospital-based alternative birth settings are associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth, reduced medical interventions and increased maternal satisfaction.

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)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations87
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207