Literature DB >> 6388776

Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial.

M Klein, A Papageorgiou, R Westreich, L Spector-Dunsky, V Elkins, M S Kramer, M M Gelfand.   

Abstract

A controlled clinical trial was carried out to assess whether a birth room setting would influence the care of mothers and newborns. Of the 163 low-risk women enrolled, 49 (30%) manifested some prenatal risk and were excluded. The remaining 114 were allocated by strict alternation to a birth room or a conventional setting. Of the 56 women allocated to the birth room, 63% of the primiparas and 19% of the multiparas were later transferred. The numbers in the two settings who had oxytocin stimulation, epidural anesthesia, forceps delivery or cesarean section did not show statistically significant differences. The episiotomy rates were slightly lower in the birth room than in the conventional setting, and the rates of an intact perineum were higher in the birth room. Neither the Apgar scores nor the morbidity rates of the infants showed statistically significant differences related to the setting to which the mother had been allocated, although more infants from the conventional setting were admitted to a special care unit. Both "experimental" groups of women less often received routine perineal shaving, enemas or intravenous infusions than did an obstetrically similar nonexperimental comparison group. Despite the apparent inability in this setting for the birth room to influence the rate of major obstetric procedures (except for episiotomy) and outcomes, the authors believe that a birth room is desirable in tertiary care centres as well as in community hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6388776      PMCID: PMC1440352     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Med Assoc J        ISSN: 0008-4409            Impact factor:   8.262


  14 in total

1.  Family-centered obstetric care: development and implementation of an alternative birthing center.

Authors:  J J Barton; G W Mungerson
Journal:  QRB Qual Rev Bull       Date:  1978-09

2.  The home-like labor-delivery room.

Authors:  P E Sumner; J P Wheeler; S G Smith
Journal:  Conn Med       Date:  1976-05

3.  The free-standing birth centre.

Authors:  A B Bennetts; R W Lubic
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1982-02-13       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Low-risk obstetric care for low-risk mothers.

Authors:  R C Goodlin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-05-10       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials.

Authors:  D L Sackett; M Gent
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-12-27       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Alternative birthing center: experience in a teaching obstetric service.

Authors:  J J Barton; S Rovner; K Puls; P A Read
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-06-01       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Alternative birth rooms and birth options.

Authors:  K B Dobbs; K K Shy
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Home or hospital births?

Authors:  G D Adamson; D J Gare
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1980-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The childbearing center: an alternative birth setting.

Authors:  J B Faison; B J Pisani; R G Douglas; G S Cranch; R W Lubic
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1979-10       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  A homestyle delivery program in a university hospital.

Authors:  A J Rollins; J A Kaplan; M E Ratkay; R C Goodlin; J S Shaw; R P Wennberg
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 0.493

View more
  10 in total

1.  UK childbirth delivery options in 2001-2002: alternatives to consultant unit booking and delivery.

Authors:  Lindsay Fp Smith; Caroline P Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Caesarean section, epidural, and forceps intervention rates for low-risk obstetric deliveries.

Authors:  J T Rourke
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Maternal and neonatal outcome in pregnancies with no risk factors.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1988-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Physician-led, hospital-linked, birth care centers can decrease cesarean section rates without increasing rates of adverse events.

Authors:  Margaret H O'Hara; Linda M Frazier; Travis W Stembridge; Robert S McKay; Sandra N Mohr; Stuart L Shalat
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.689

Review 5.  Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth.

Authors:  Ole Olsen; Jette A Clausen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-09-12

6.  The canadian family practice accoucheur.

Authors:  M Klein
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 7.  Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth.

Authors:  Ellen D Hodnett; Soo Downe; Denis Walsh
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-08-15

8.  Maternal and neonatal outcome in pregnancies with no risk factors.

Authors:  J M Moutquin; R Gagnon; C Rainville; L Giroux; G Amyot; R Bilodeau; P Raynauld
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1987-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Births in two different delivery units in the same clinic--a prospective study of healthy primiparous women.

Authors:  Britt Ingeborg Eide; Anne Britt Vika Nilsen; Svein Rasmussen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-06-22       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 10.  Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Authors:  Jane Sandall; Hora Soltani; Simon Gates; Andrew Shennan; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.