First of all, I am NOT posting this to point fingers at anyone, or to judge anyone's preferences. I am simply posting as I feel my A16 ladies should be fully informed about the latest scientific evidence about birthing choices.
Click on this link to read an abstract for the most recent article on this topic:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738#abstractOf note, the New England Journal of Medicine is the most respected and highest impact journal in Medicine. Only about 1% of Science is accepted there, and understood to be he best medical science. They are very strict with what they publish.
To summarize: in an epidemiological study, authors compared outcomes from planned at-home births to planned in-hospital births. Although rates of vaginal delivery were higher with home births, rates of perinatal mortality (read: baby's death around the time of delivery) were higher among those who had a planned at-home birth.
The odds ratio for perinatal mortality for home births was 2.43. Translating: babies born from planned at-home deliveries were 143% more likely to die around the time of birth than babies born from planned hospital deliveries.
As we all approach our due dates, I though you may want to know and reflect upon the latest data on the field.
Re: Latest scientific evidence about at-home births
Shouldn't you be enjoying your vacation?
Personally, I couldn't do a home birth. Pre-eclampsia with my first has made me beyond paranoid about labor complications.
The mess is my biggest concern for not having a home birth and if there happened to be complications I would want to be as close to a hospital as possible not the now 20 miles away. Kudos to those who do home births...I just know it's not for me.
*This may be a UO. Steps off soapbox.*
Edited to add: I don't intend to say that mothers who choose this route are idiots or are all "self righteous holier than thou know it alls." This just describes a particular couple of people in my mind and some of the tones of boards I've read in the past from members of this camp. I just truly do not understand the rationale behind such a decision in today's world.
My OB shares the exact same thoughts, as do nearly every OB I know. I think the recent study above may help shed light into this important issue, and help inform pregnant women so that whatever it is the decision she makes, it will be a well informed one.
It's a boy! Grow baby, grow! EDD: 4/22/2016
It's a boy! Grow baby, grow! EDD: 4/22/2016
That Framingham study is such an interesting read, especially for how old it is. My degree is Kinesiology, which is typically used as a undergrad for either med/PA, PT or AT, so we did a lot of exercise prescription. My favorite professor does his research on stress and hypertension/CVD in state troopers so we heard about Farmingham a lot
I hemorrhaged. My birth was medically uneventful, and my post partum bleeding was within the normal range, and then surprise! 8 hours after my son was born, blood everywhere. If I had a home birth, I'm sure all my labor support people would have gone home by then. But I was in a hospital room, and I pushed the call button, and I had a team of five doctors and nurses in my room within minutes. They got the bleeding to stop, I got a transfusion, and I lived to tell the tale.
As far as which environment I can relax more in, it's the one with trained medical staff across the hall.
Miscarriage 3/15 at 10 weeks
BFP 7/23/15 EDD 4/3/16
Back to this study, reading the abstract again I was confused as to why the adjusted odds ratio was statistically significant (95% confidence interval did not cross 1.0), but the adjusted risk difference wasn't (95% CI crossed 1.0). I will have to read the full paper, which I can't do right now as I'm on vacation without access to my university library. I will read it in full upon my return.