Literature DB >> 29131385

Rural community birth: Maternal and neonatal outcomes for planned community births among rural women in the United States, 2004-2009.

Elizabeth Nethery1, Wendy Gordon2, Marit L Bovbjerg3, Melissa Cheyney4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approximately 22% of women in the United States live in rural areas with limited access to obstetric care. Despite declines in hospital-based obstetric services in many rural communities, midwifery care at home and in free standing birth centers is available in many rural communities. This study examines maternal and neonatal outcomes among planned home and birth center births attended by midwives, comparing outcomes for rural and nonrural women.
METHODS: Using the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 dataset of 18 723 low-risk, planned home, and birth center births, rural women (n = 3737) were compared to nonrural women. Maternal outcomes included mode of delivery (cesarean and instrumental delivery), blood transfusions, severe events, perineal lacerations, or transfer to hospital and a composite (any of the above). The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of early neonatal intensive care unit or hospital admissions (longer than 1 day), and intrapartum or neonatal deaths. Analysis involved multivariable logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographics, antepartum, and intrapartum risk factors.
RESULTS: Rural women had different risk profiles relative to nonrural women and reduced risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in bivariable analyses. However, after adjusting for risk factors and confounders, there were no significant differences for a composite of maternal (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.05 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.93-1.19]) or neonatal (aOR 1.13 [95% CI 0.87-1.46]) outcomes between rural and nonrural pregnancies.
CONCLUSION: Among this sample of low-risk women who planned midwife-led community births, no increased risk was detected by rural vs nonrural status.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  access to care; birth center; health policy; home birth; midwifery; rural health

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29131385     DOI: 10.1111/birt.12322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  5 in total

1.  Utility of the 5-Minute Apgar Score as a Research Endpoint.

Authors:  Marit L Bovbjerg; Mekhala V Dissanayake; Melissa Cheyney; Jennifer Brown; Jonathan M Snowden
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Social Determinants of Pregnancy-Related Mortality and Morbidity in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Eileen Wang; Kimberly B Glazer; Elizabeth A Howell; Teresa M Janevic
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 7.623

3.  Birth Outcomes for Planned Home and Licensed Freestanding Birth Center Births in Washington State.

Authors:  Elizabeth Nethery; Laura Schummers; Audrey Levine; Aaron B Caughey; Vivienne Souter; Wendy Gordon
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Optimal outcome factors in maternity and newborn care for inpatient (hospital maternity ward-HMW) and outpatient deliveries (outhospital maternity clinics -OMC).

Authors:  Azra Lukač; Nenad Šulović; Aleksandra Ilić; Milica Mijović; Dijana Tasić; Sonja Smiljić
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Geospatial variation in caesarean delivery.

Authors:  Jennifer Vanderlaan; Johnathan A Edwards; Anne Dunlop
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2020-01-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.