Neonatal morbidity and mortality in birth centers in the United States 2018–2021: An observational study of low‐risk birthing individuals

Author:

Hoehn‐Velasco Lauren1,Ross Lisa2,Phillippi R. David3ORCID,Niemczyk Nancy A.4ORCID,Cammarano Dominic5,Calvin Steven6,Phillippi Julia C.7ORCID,Alliman Jill28,Stapleton Susan Rutledge2ORCID,Wright Jennifer2,Fisch Stanley8ORCID,Jolles Diana8ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Economics Georgia State University Atlanta Georgia USA

2. American Association of Birth Centers Perkiomenville Pennsylvania USA

3. Department of Mathematics Belmont University Nashville Tennessee USA

4. Nurse‐Midwife DNP Program University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA

5. Division of Gynecology Reading Hospital Reading Pennsylvania USA

6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USA

7. Vanderbilt University School of Nursing Nashville Tennessee USA

8. Frontier Nursing University Lexington Kentucky USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMany studies reporting neonatal outcomes in birth centers include births with risk factors not acceptable for birth center care using the evidence‐based CABC criteria. Accurate comparisons of outcomes by birth setting for low‐risk patients are needed.MethodsData from the public Natality Detailed File from 2018 to 2021 were used. Logistic regression, including adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios, compared neonatal outcomes (chorioamnionitis, Apgar scores, resuscitation, intensive care, seizures, and death) between centers and hospitals. Covariates included maternal diabetes, body mass index, age, parity, and demographic characteristics.ResultsThe sample included 8,738,711 births (8,698,432 (99.53%) in hospitals and 40,279 (0.46%) in birth centers). There were no significant differences in neonatal deaths (aOR 1.037; 95% CI [0.515, 2.088]; p‐value 0.918) or seizures (aOR 0.666; 95% CI [0.315, 1.411]; p‐value 0.289). Measures of morbidity either not significantly different or less likely to occur in birth centers compared to hospitals included chorioamnionitis (aOR 0.032; 95% CI [0.020, 0.052]; p‐value < 0.001), Apgar score < 4 (aOR 0.814, 95% CI [0.638, 1.039], p‐value 0.099), Apgar score < 7 (aOR 1.075, 95% CI [0.979, 1.180], p‐value 0.130), ventilation >6 h (aOR 0.349; [0.281,0.433], p‐value < 0.001), and intensive care admission (aOR 0.356; 95% CI [0.328, 0.386], p‐value < 0.001). Birth centers had higher odds of assisted neonatal ventilation for <6 h as compared to hospitals (aOR 1.373; 95% CI [1.293, 1.457], p‐value < 0.001).ConclusionNeonatal deaths and seizures were not significantly different between freestanding birth centers and hospitals. Chorioamnionitis, Apgar scores < 4, and intensive care admission were less likely to occur in birth centers.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference34 articles.

1. Births: final data for 2021;Osterman MJKHB;Natl Vital Stat Rep,2023

2. National Academies of Sciences Engineering & Medicine.Birth settings in America: outcomes quality access and choice.2020.

3. Levels of Maternal Care

4. Committee Opinion No. 697: Planned Home Birth

5. Planned Home Birth. American College of Nurse‐Midwives. Planned Home Birth Position Statement.2016. Silver Spring MD.https://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000251/Planned‐Home‐Birth‐Dec‐2016.pdf

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3