Why do women choose home births
Author:
Grünebaum Amos1, Chervenak Frank A.1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zucker School of Medicine , 5945 Lenox Hill Hospital , New York , NY , USA
Abstract
Abstract
In recent years, the US has seen a significant rise in the rate of planned home births, with a 60 % increase from 2016 to 2023, reaching a total of 46,918. This trend positions the US as the leading developed country in terms of home birth prevalence. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggests stringent criteria for selecting candidates for home births, but these guidelines have not been adopted by home birth midwives leading to poor outcomes including increased rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality. This paper explores the motivations behind choosing home births in the US despite the known risks. Studies highlight factors such as the desire for a more natural birth experience, previous negative hospital experiences, and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceptions of hospital safety. We provide new insights into why women choose home births by incorporating insights from Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s theories on decision-making, suggesting that cognitive biases may significantly influence these decisions. Kahneman’s work provides a framework for understanding how biases and heuristics can lead to the underestimation of risks and overemphasis on personal birth experiences. We also provide recommendations (“nudges according to Richard Thaler”) to help ensure women have access to clear, balanced information about home births. The development of this publication was assisted by OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4, which facilitated the synthesis of literature, interpretation of data, and manuscript drafting. This collaboration underscores the potential of integrating advanced computational tools in academic research, enhancing the efficiency and depth of our analyses.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference60 articles.
1. Grünebaum, A, Bornstein, E, McLeod-Sordjan, R, Lewis, T, Wasden, S, Combs, A, et al.. The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023;228:S965–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.08.011. 2. Grünebaum, A, Bornstein, E, Katz, A, Chervenak, FA. An immutable truth: planned home births in the United States result in avoidable adverse neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;226:138–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1347. 3. Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Sapra, KJ, Brent, RL, Levene, MI, Arabin, B, et al.. Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:323.e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.025. 4. Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Sapra, KJ, Brent, RL, Levene, MI, Arabin, B, et al.. Early and total neonatal mortality in relation to birth setting in the United States, 2006–2009. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:390.e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.047. 5. Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Arabin, B, Brent, RL, Levene, MI, Chervenak, FA. Neonatal mortality of planned home birth in the United States in relation to professional certification of birth attendants. PLoS One 2016;11:e0155721. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155721.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|