Literature DB >> 1403177

The National Birth Center Study. Part II--Intrapartum and immediate postpartum and neonatal care.

J P Rooks1, N L Weatherby, E K Ernst.   

Abstract

Part II of a three-part report of the National Birth Center Study describes care provided to 11,814 women and their newborns during and after labor and delivery until they were transferred or discharged from the birth centers. There were few low birth weight or preterm or postterm births, but more macrosomic babies than among all U.S. births during the same time period. Certified nurse-midwives provided most of the intrapartum care, which is described in the context of medically recommended standards and data that describe care provided to low-risk women giving birth in U.S. hospitals. Birth center care deviated from typical hospital care in several ways. Birth center clients were much less likely to receive central nervous system depressants, anesthesia, continuous electronic fetal monitoring, induction and/or augmentation of labor, intravenous infusions, amniotomies, or episiotomies, and they had relatively few vaginal examinations. They were more likely to eat solid food during labor and to take showers and/or baths. Nulliparity was strongly associated with longer first stage labors and longer labor was associated with more frequent use of many kinds of interventions. Infant birth weight, mother's position during delivery, and forceps- or vacuum-assisted deliveries are examined in relation to episiotomies and lacerations and tears.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1403177     DOI: 10.1016/0091-2182(92)90239-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nurse Midwifery        ISSN: 0091-2182


  7 in total

1.  Eat, drink, and be labouring?

Authors:  Jennifer A Beggs; M Colleen Stainton
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2002

2.  Appendix: birth can safely take place at home and in birthing centers: the coalition for improving maternity services:.

Authors:  Mayri Sagady Leslie; Amy Romano
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2007

3.  Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA.

Authors:  M F MacDorman; G K Singh
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Freestanding midwifery units versus obstetric units: does the effect of place of birth differ with level of social disadvantage?

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women.

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Anna Margrethe Møller; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Lisbeth B Knudsen; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland.

Authors:  Christopher G Fawsitt; Jane Bourke; Aileen Murphy; Brendan McElroy; Jennifer E Lutomski; Rosemary Murphy; Richard A Greene
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.561

7.  Are freestanding midwifery units a safe alternative to obstetric units for low-risk, primiparous childbirth? An analysis of effect differences by parity in a matched cohort study.

Authors:  Louise Fischer Christensen; Charlotte Overgaard
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.007

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.