|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Home delivery - end of discussion?From: Kathi Wilson (wilsonk@gtn.on.ca)Wed Jul 31 20:19:18 2002
At 05:49 PM 31/07/2002 -0500, you wrote: > ACOG NEWS RELEASE >For Release: Embargoed until July 31, 2002 >12:01 AM ET > >Home Births Double Risk of Newborn Death > >WASHINGTON, DC -- The risk of death to newborns delivered at home is >nearly twice that of newborns delivered in hospitals, according to a >study in the August issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Newborns >delivered at home were also at higher risk for having low Apgar scores >-- an assessment of the newborn's heart rate, breathing, muscle tone, >reflexes and skin color within minutes of being born. > >Researchers studied birth data from Washington State for the period 1989 >to 1996. They compared outcomes of 7,518 infants intended to be born at >home to the outcomes of 14,038 infants intended to be born in the >hospital. They found that pregnant women intending to deliver at home >were, on average, more likely to be married, white, nonsmokers, and to >have other children. > >Infants intended to be born at home were at higher risk for very low >Apgar scores, a potentially fatal problem. The association between >newborn death and intent to deliver at home was particularly strong for >women with no previous births (nulliparous). Women were more likely to >themselves experience problems, including prolonged labor and postpartum >hemorrhage. According to the researchers, their study suggests that >planned home births are associated with a higher risk of negative >outcomes for both women and newborns. > >Contact: Jenny Pang, MD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Washington >School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, at jwpang@u.washington.edu I guess I would have to ask if the same rigorous methodology as was used in the NEJM VBAC study was used here (i.e. sloppy and undisciplined crap that would have gotten an "F" in any undergraduate research course that I took at McMaster University, but that everyone chose to overlook b/c they liked the message). I would never pass judgement one way or the other until I'd read the study. Abstracts are crap, pure and simple. Personally, I'm a "show me the money" type of gal. I won't comment until I read the text. The interesting thing I find is that you entitle this "the end of the discussion". How come the halting of the WHI trial on hormone replacement therapy wasn't "the end of the discussion"? ***************************** Kathi Wilson, BHSc, RM Thames Valley Midwives -- 346 Platts Lane, London, Ontario, Canada http://tvm.on.ca mailto:wilsonk@gtn.on.ca
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:51:58 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.