After going around the headline and the news in the different media that talk about this study, I decided to put it in question precisely because, in principle, it is not clear to me if there are more risks of giving birth at home for new mothers, which is what has been stated in different information these days.
I imagine that in a way it would be like that, but in the same way there may be more risks for a new mother in the hospital. The vast majority of headlines about this study point out that "Home birth has more risks if the mother is first-time" (a simple Google search will take you to multiple digital newspapers).
The highest risk data indicate that women who stop for the first time and do so at home are almost three times more likely to suffer complications than if they go to a hospital.
According to these data, taken from a study conducted at the University of Oxford, the baby born at home is more prone to suffer from lack of oxygen during childbirth and distress (almost triple the possibilities). These risks can lead to the death of the fetus, death in the first week, brain injuries, fractures and feces in the lungs.
Serious problems of this type are rare: they occur only 3.5 times out of every 1,000 births in an obstetrics unit of any hospital. However, the study reveals that the figure rises to 9.5 per 1,000 babies if the mother opts for a home birth.
After reading these alarming data, the article gives us a break:
The work that points out the risks for new mothers, however, clarifies that in low-risk births there is little difference between giving birth in hospitals or at home with the help of a midwife.
That is, do all the risks listed above refer to first-time mothers with risks, whose delivery is not advised at home? Are cases of home births not attended by midwives included? We remember at this point the criteria for attending a home birth, as this option is not always advisable.
On the other hand, the media that opted for a less alarming headline, what stands out is that this new study conducted in England showed that there is little difference in complications among the babies of women with low-risk pregnancies that gave birth in hospitals and those of those who gave birth with midwives at home or in delivery rooms.
In this case, it is pointed out that the researchers claim that women with uncomplicated pregnancies in England should be able to choose where they want to give birth; and an expert said that about half of all pregnant women in the country could potentially give birth safely outside a hospital (the other half are risk cases).
But they made a warning about new mothers and their babies, who may face a greater risk and choose a home birth.
Even new mothers without risk? It is what is not clear to us after reading the different media that have echoed the news in recent days.
We access the original news
Finally it seems that the mess is clear, if my limited knowledge of English does not fail me, if we turn to the original news, which speaks of this work, directed by Peter Brocklehurst, director of the Institute for Women's Health at University College Hospital from London, and it is published in the "British Medical Journal".
The research was conducted on the basis of 65,000 qualified low-risk births. Specifically, the original news is entitled "Women with a pregnancy at low risk of complications can safely be offered a choice of where to give birth, says study", which we can translate as "Women with a pregnancy at low risk of complications are you can give them a choice where to give birth safely (according to one study). "
I translate the paragraph that seems key:
For women who give birth for the first time (nulliparous), the risk of an adverse outcome was higher (9.3 per 1,000 births) for planned births at home compared to obstetric units, but not in comparison with other units (delivery rooms, led by midwives). In contrast, for women who had given birth before (multiparous women), there was no significant difference in the rate of adverse effects between births.
That is yes there were greater complications in new mothers with pregnancies without risk (those that entered the study) in the deliveries at home, but without differences in the delivery rooms (a modality quite extended in the United Kingdom) and in the hospital, where it would be equally safe.
Finally, we highlight that those responsible for the study point out that they would never tell a woman where they have to give birth, but that all the data and the possible risks for mothers to make an informed choice must be known.
Undoubtedly, if even in the United States where the rate of home births is quite low this trend is increasing, it is not surprising that in many other places the option is extended and not considered an extravagance.
Therefore, this type of study, which also takes into account other types of environments to give birth that have been proven safe, such as delivery houses, are necessary and welcome. Of course, we hope that we will arrive more clearly next time and not raise as many doubts as the impact of the latter study on the safety of childbirth in different environments.
