Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many home-like birth centres have been established near conventional labour wards for the care of pregnant women who prefer and require little or no medical intervention during labour and birth. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of care in a home-like birth environment compared to care in a conventional labour ward, on labour and birth outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register was searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a home-like institutional birth environment to conventional hospital care for pregnant women at low risk of obstetric complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving almost 8000 women were included. Substantial numbers of women allocated to home-like settings were transferred to standard care before or during labour, making interpretation of results difficult. Allocation to a home-like setting was associated with lower rates of intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.93), fetal heart rate abnormalities (0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.81), augmented labour, and immobility during labour, as well as greater satisfaction with care, and increased likelihood of sore nipples and mastitis. There was a non-statistically significant trend towards higher perinatal mortality in the home-like setting (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.78). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be some benefits from home-like settings for childbirth, although increased support from caregivers may be more important. Caregivers and clients in home-like settings need to watch 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 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 | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".