Literature DB >> 8272902

Midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth settings: how do they reduce unnecessary cesarean section births?

C Sakala1.   

Abstract

In studies using matched or adjusted cohorts, U.S. women beginning labor with midwives and/or in out-of-hospital settings have attained cesarean section rates that are considerably lower than similar women using prevailing forms of care--physicians in hospitals. This cesarean reduction involved no compromise in mortality and morbidity outcome measures. Moreover, groups of women at elevated risk for adverse perinatal outcomes have attained excellent outcomes and cesarean rates well below the general population rate with these care arrangements. How do midwives and out-of-hospital birth settings so effectively help women to avoid unnecessary cesareans? This paper explores this question by presenting data from interviews with midwives who work in home settings. The midwives' understanding of and approaches to major medical indications for cesarean birth contrast strikingly with prevailing medical knowledge and practice. From the midwives' perspective, many women receive cesareans due to pseudo-problems, to problems that might easily be prevented, or to problems that might be addressed through less drastic measures. Policy reports addressing the problem of unnecessary cesarean births in the U.S. have failed to highlight the substantial reduction in such births that may be expected to accompany greatly expanded use of midwives and out-of-hospital birth settings. The present study--together with cohort studies documenting such a reduction, studies showing other benefits of such forms of care, and the increasing reluctance of physicians to provide obstetrical services--suggests that childbearing families would realize many benefits from greatly expanded use of midwives and out-of-hospital birth settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8272902     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90335-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  5 in total

Review 1.  Home Birth Midwifery in the United States : Evolutionary Origins and Modern Challenges.

Authors:  Bria Dunham
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2016-12

2.  Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women.

Authors:  R A Rosenblatt; S A Dobie; L G Hart; R Schneeweiss; D Gould; T R Raine; T J Benedetti; M J Pirani; E B Perrin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Health system factors and caesarean sections in Kosovo: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ilir Hoxha; Alban Fejza; Mrika Aliu; Peter Jüni; David C Goodman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Collaborative model of intrapartum care: qualitative study on barriers and facilitators to implementation in a private Brazilian hospital.

Authors:  Mercedes Colomar; Franco Gonzalez Mora; Ana Pilar Betran; Newton Opiyo; Meghan A Bohren; Maria Regina Torloni; Monica Siaulys
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section targeted at organisations, facilities and systems: Systematic review of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Carol Kingdon; Soo Downe; Ana Pilar Betran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.