Connect with us

Motherhood

For low-risk pregnancies, planned home births just as safe as birth centre births – study

Published

on

In low-risk pregnancies, mothers and children are just as safe with a planned home birth as they are with a planned birth center birth, a national study led by Oregon State University researchers has shown.

The findings, published in Medical Care, contradict doctors’ long-held concerns about home birth, including a recent opinion by the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians that describes hospitals and accredited birth centres as the safest places to have a baby.

A birth centres is a health care facility designed to provide a more natural and home-like environment than a hospital.

OSU scientists analysed two national registries for community births – planned birth either at home or in a birth centre for low-risk pregnancies – in the largest study to examine how the settings compared to each other in terms of health outcomes.

A low-risk pregnancy is defined as a single baby being carried to full term (at least 37 weeks) and positioned with its head down, with no major maternal complications such as diabetes or pre-eclampsia.

At least 70 per cent of pregnancies are low risk, said Marit Bovbjerg, an associate professor in the Oregon State College of Health.

Combined, the two registries documented more than 110,000 births from 2012 to 2019, representing all 50 U.S. states, and the data showed no safety difference between home birth and birth centre birth.

Bovbjerg said: “Historically, physicians in the U.S. have objected to planned home births but not planned birth centre births, even though from both settings you would need to transfer the birthing person to a hospital for any major complications.

“Until now, we’ve had no evidence about home versus birth centre outcomes.

“Our study is the first to provide evidence that these two birth settings are equally safe.”

Bovbjerg and Melissa Cheyney, a professor in the OSU College of Liberal Arts and a licensed midwife, did not directly compare the safety of community settings to hospitals but they note that the bulk of evidence globally, including a U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report published in 2020, supports the idea that planned community birth is a safe alternative to hospital birth.

Bovbjerg, who with Cheyney co-directs Oregon State’s Uplift Lab, said: “That means that within the U.S., we already had evidence that birth centres were comparable to hospitals for low-risk births.

“Our study compared home to birth centre and suggests that both community settings are a reasonable choice for low-risk birthing people.”

The scientists note that the rate of home birth in the United States has been increasing over the last two decades, and that 2 per cent of births in the U.S. happen in one of the two types of community settings, which have similar attendants and interventions available but different practice standards, regulatory guidelines and levels of health systems integration.

They added that planned home birth resulted in a lower rate of transfer to hospital than planned birth centre birth for reasons that could relate to concern over negative hospital experiences.

“They might fear a loss of continuity of care provider, as well as possible mistreatment and judgment upon arrival at the hospital,” Cheyney said, citing a national care-experience study in which many participants reported mistreatment, including being ignored, scolded, shouted at or subject to an invasive procedure without consent.

“That was especially true for Black and Indigenous people who transferred to a hospital from a planned home birth,” she said.

“If previous hostile transfer experiences contribute to a reluctance to transfer, we obviously need to work together to improve the transfer experience.

“Transfer from community settings is often necessary, and anything that discourages a necessary transfer likely causes harm.”

Mental health

Natural birth pressure harming new mothers’ mental health, research finds

Published

on

Pressure to have a natural birth can cause lasting psychological harm when labour does not go to plan, new research shows.

The study found that the messages women receive during pregnancy are directly linked to the shame and self-blame many feel when those expectations are not met.

For the first time, the research provides an explanation for why unmet birth expectations contribute to psychological harm.

Several women involved in the research said they felt they had not given birth “properly”, even when medical intervention had saved their lives.

Rebecca Matthews, lead author and PhD researcher at the University of Reading, said: “These women were not failed by their bodies, they were failed by the messages they were given.

“Birth trauma does not begin with birth. It begins in the ideology sold to women throughout pregnancy.

“For the first time we can explain precisely how, by showing how birth culture creates a moral standard for women that defines what a good mother does and then leaves them to blame themselves when birth does not match that.

“Until we reform the way we prepare women for birth, we will keep seeing the same devastating consequences for mothers and their babies.”

The researchers interviewed 21 first-time mothers in the UK whose births did not go as planned.

From NCT and hypnobirthing classes, to social media to midwives, the researchers heard how women are surrounded by messaging that frames natural, unmedicated vaginal birth as the “gold standard”, not just medically preferable, but as a mark of being a good mother and the first test of maternal worth.

Research shows around half of women report their birth differed significantly from their expectations, and for the women in this study, all of whom experienced exactly that, the psychological consequences were profound.

Women judged themselves against the internalised moral standard that this ideology had created.

The researchers are calling for antenatal education to stop treating one kind of birth as the goal and to present all birth outcomes as equally valid routes to motherhood.

They also call for better postnatal screening for women whose births did not go as expected, specifically targeting the shame, self-blame and identity disruption that this research identifies as mechanisms underlying birth trauma.

The findings align with and extend the conclusions of the Kirkup, Ockenden and Birth Trauma Inquiry reports, all of which documented how the institutional pursuit of “normal birth” contributed to preventable harm.

This research provides the first theoretical explanation of how that ideology generates individual psychological harm and points to antenatal messaging as the primary site of such preventable harm.

Continue Reading

Pregnancy

Wales becomes first UK nation to unite maternity care under a single digital record

Published

on

System C has completed the national rollout of BadgerNet Maternity across all seven NHS Health Boards in Wales. This is the first time any UK nation has unified its maternity care under a single digital record and patient-facing app.

With approximately 26,000 babies born annually in Wales, BadgerNet connects maternity information across organisational boundaries in the country.

Expectant parents can access their records, maternity appointments and key updates digitally through a single app, wherever they receive care while clinicians have secure access to the right information at the point of care.

The national three-year agreement across all Heath Boards replaces a patchwork of separate local systems and eliminates the need for paper hand-held notes.

Anthony Tracey is director of digital at Hywel Dda University Health Board, the final of the Welsh Health Boards to go live with BadgerNet.

He said: “The rollout of BadgerNet across Wales is a vitally important step forward in modernising our maternity services and providing a consistent service across the country.

“By giving expectant parents direct access to their information and enabling clinicians to share data more effectively, we are strengthening safety, transparency and consistency in maternity care nationwide.”

For expectant parents, the single digital maternity record transforms how they engage with their care.

Instead of carrying paper notes and repeating information at every appointment, parents can access key details, appointments and updates digitally, supporting more informed conversations and shared decision-making.

The result is greater transparency, fewer administrative frustrations and a more joined-up experience throughout pregnancy and into the postnatal period, regardless of which health board they fall under.

For clinicians and Health Boards, the joined-up approach reduces duplication and streamlines handovers across teams and sites. Information is digitally captured once and made available securely wherever it is needed, helping to minimise errors, reduce time spent tracking down notes and support more efficient multidisciplinary working.

At a national level, linking maternity data across Wales creates a foundation for safer, more consistent care.

Aggregated, standardised information enables earlier identification of trends and variation, supports evidence-based policy decisions and enhances long-term service planning.

With a comprehensive view of maternity activity and outcomes across the country, Wales is now better positioned to raise standards for parents, babies and families.

Guy Lucchi, managing director of healthcare at System C, added: “Delivering a truly national approach across all seven Health Boards is a significant achievement for Wales.

“One shared system means information flows with the patient, not the organisation.

“That reduces duplication, supports earlier identification of risk and frees up valuable clinical time.

“Crucially, linking maternity data at a national level provides powerful insight to drive improvement. Health Boards can benchmark, plan services with greater confidence and ensure resources are targeted where they are needed most, while expectant parents benefit from clearer communication and a more connected experience of care.”

Continue Reading

Pregnancy

Early birth safer in high blood pressure pregnancies – study

Published

on

Early birth may cut serious complications and stillbirth risk in high blood pressure pregnancies without increasing caesarean rates, a Cochrane review suggests.

Planned early birth after 34 weeks cut serious maternal complications by nearly half compared with watchful waiting, the findings suggest.

It also likely reduced the risk of stillbirth by about 75 per cent, although the authors said this should be interpreted with caution.

Catherine Cluver, senior author of the review and researcher at Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, said: “These findings give clinicians and women clearer guidance about the timing of birth when high blood pressure develops in pregnancy.

“For women with pre-eclampsia in particular, the evidence supports offering planned early birth from 34 weeks, and no later than 37 weeks.”

This Cochrane review, led by King’s College London, pooled data from six randomised controlled trials involving 3,491 women.

The trials compared planned early birth after 34 weeks with watchful waiting in women with one or more hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension and chronic hypertension, are the second leading cause of maternal death globally.

For women with pre-eclampsia, early birth remains the only definitive treatment, as the condition is driven by the placenta and will only resolve once it is delivered.

The trials took place in the Netherlands, UK, US, India and Zambia.

The review found high-certainty evidence that serious maternal complications were nearly halved in women who had planned early birth compared with those managed with watchful waiting.

The finding on stillbirth was based on moderate-certainty evidence and was driven by a single trial in India and Zambia, where stillbirth rates are higher. No stillbirths were recorded in the high-income country trials.

The review also found that planned early birth likely does not increase neonatal unit admission, although this finding was also based on moderate-certainty evidence.

The authors said the maternal benefit held across both high- and low-income settings, suggesting early birth reduces complications even when women are already receiving appropriate monitoring and care.

Alice Beardmore-Gray, lead author of the review and obstetrician at King’s College London, said: “Judging when to offer birth is the question that we battle with clinically every day.”

The authors added that in two of the trials, more than half the women allocated to watchful waiting ended up needing emergency birth before 37 weeks.

They typically gave birth just three to five days later than women allocated to planned early birth and often experienced more complications.

Beardmore-Gray said: “A common misconception is that by waiting longer, mum and baby are gaining more time, but often what you are doing is just delaying an inevitable emergency birth, when both may be in a worse condition.”

The review found high-certainty evidence of no increased risk of caesarean section associated with planned early birth.

Beardmore-Gray said: “That is the first question anyone asks when you offer them an early induction: won’t it increase my risk of a C-section?

“Being able to clearly answer no is a really important piece of information to give women when counselling them about the timing of their birth.”

The authors said the timing of birth should take into account the woman’s preferences and the severity of her condition.

They said these findings are consistent with and reinforce current international guidelines, which recommend that all women with pre-eclampsia should be offered planned early birth no later than 37 weeks.

Women with gestational hypertension or chronic hypertension without severe features may choose to continue with careful monitoring, with planned early birth considered from 39 weeks onwards.

Further research is needed on longer-term outcomes for infants born late preterm and on the long-term cardiovascular health of mothers affected by hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.