Planned Home Births in the United States Have Outcomes Comparable to Planned Birth Center Births for Low-Risk Birthing Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are lingering concerns in the United States about home birth. We used 2 large (n = 50,043; n = 62,984), national community birth registries to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned home versus planned birth center births. METHODS: To compare outcomes by intended birth site, we used logistic regressions, controlling for demographic and pregnancy risk variables. Maternal outcomes included intrapartum or postpartum transfer to hospital, hospitalization, cesarean, and hemorrhage; neonatal outcomes included neonatal transfer, hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and intrapartum or neonatal death. Analyses were conducted twice, once in each dataset. RESULTS: Individuals who planned home births had a lower incidence of all types of transfers, compared with those who planned birth center births, but in one dataset only, experienced more cesareans [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (1.02-1.70); 0.95 (0.88-1.03)]. Planned home birth was associated with lower adjusted odds of maternal hospitalization in one dataset but not the other [0.97 (0.54-1.74); 0.85 (0.76-0.95)], and was not associated with hemorrhage. Neonatal outcomes likewise were either not associated with a planned birthplace or suggested home birth was safer: hospitalization [0.77 (0.53-1.11), 0.90 (0.82-0.98)], neonatal intensive care unit admission [0.54 (0.28-1.00), 0.97 (0.86-1.10)]. There was no observable association with intrapartum or neonatal death: 1.07 (0.68-1.67; only calculated once because of small numbers of events). CONCLUSIONS: Planned home births are as safe as planned birth center births for low-risk pregnancies. Current guidelines advising against planned home births are not supported by these data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".