Skip to main content

Presenting and Honoring: Fatima Muhammad, MPH, of Phoenix, AZ

Posted by Midwives Alliance on February 24th, 2014

Celebrating Black History Month

Fatima Muhammad, MPH, is the Director of the new Tanner Community Development Corporation’s Birthing Project, based in Phoenix, Arizona. The mission of the TCDC Birthing Project is: "To empower our families with quality education, skills, and support that promote conscious conception, positive birth experiences and outcomes, resulting in healthy and nurturing parenting practices." Fatima began her journey in Maternal and Child Health as a doula in Tucson, AZ. A few months later she was offered a position at the Phoenix Birthing Project. While there, she worked to decrease high infant mortality rates in the African American community through training Arizona’s first group of Community based doulas, facilitating parenting classes and providing psychosocial support to African American pregnant and parenting families.

In addition to being the Director of TCDC's Birthing Project, Fatima continues her maternal and child health work as a midwifery student. "Becoming a midwife allows me the opportunity to provide quality healthcare services to our families. I believe getting back to our traditional birth practices is key to empowering, preserving and strengthening our community. I plan on practicing the best possible midwifery on all levels; mentally, physically, spiritually and skillfully, resulting in optimal birth outcomes," said Fatima. "My biggest challenges in this work thus far have been funding and finishing my midwifery license. These are no longer obstacles. I realize we are the ones we have been waiting for and no one can serve our community better than we can to improve our state of health."

When asked who her heroes are, Fatima responded, "My 'shero' is my mother. She knew how to make a way out of no way. Her love was so nurturing that it surpassed all of our hardships. My mother always reminded me that I could be or do anything! She taught me about strength, my power, and to value the gifts the Creator has given me as well to help others through the use of my gifts."

For more information on how to assist the TCDC Birthing Project please visit www.tcdccorp.org, or call 602.253.6904.

Home Birth Research Q & A

Posted by MANA Community Manager on February 7th, 2014

We’ve had lots of questions from families, midwives, and others about the recent release of two articles that were based on the Midwives Alliance of North America dataset (MANA Stats). Here are answers to some common questions, along with a roundup of some of the coverage.

Numbers are useful, but only if they can be compared to something. What outcomes can we compare to the Cheyney article’s findings?

In the study, the authors compare the findings to the best available observational studies of planned home births and birth center births. For low-risk women, the authors find similar rates of both positive and negative outcomes for mothers and babies as nearly every other large, well-designed study.

Some of these well-designed studies are able to compare to hospital rates (which is difficult to do in the U.S.). For example, the Hutton et al (2009) study found no difference in risks to babies between home and hospital in Ontario, Canada. While it is reassuring that the Hutton study had comparable rates of mortality at home as the Cheyney study and it found no difference in risk between home and hospital, more research will be needed to compare U.S. home birth and hospital birth rates.

Why doesn’t the Cheyney study compare home birth to hospital birth mortality rates?

It makes sense to want to draw these comparisons. However, hospital rates in the U.S. are derived from vital statistics data (birth certificates and/or death certificates). A number of organizations, including the American College of Nurse Midwives and Citizens for Midwifery have spelled out the limitations, which include a failure to capture the intended place of birth and inaccurate reporting of some outcomes.

Also, the MANA Stats data captures three kinds of mortality outcomes:
Intrapartum = a baby that was alive at the onset of labor, but died prior to birth
Early neonatal = a baby that was born alive, but died during the first week of life
Late neonatal = a baby that was born alive, but died between 7 and 28 days of life

Vital Statistics data report only two: early and late neonatal deaths. You may have participated in discussions that attempt to make these comparisons. Many have confused the combined rate (intrapartum+early+late neonatal) with rates that include only one or two of these outcomes. When attempting to compare rates, we encourage you to ask whether the rate is for intrapartum, early, or late neonatal, and to ask for the source of their data.

How could the findings of this research be so different from findings that suggest home birth has a greater risk than hospital births?

Those studies primarily rely on Vital Statistics data. For a helpful fact sheet on how to assess the quality of articles based on medical records - the “gold standard” for research and the basis of MANA Stats - against those based on Vital Statistics, see this in-depth look at Citizens for Midwifery.

I’m looking for unbiased analyses of this article and home birth evidence to share with families, policy makers, and others.

Here’s a few we’ve found:
Evidence-Based Birth summary on Facebook. Rebecca Dekker is known for her thoughtful and unbiased approaches to the literature.
Judith Lothian’s review at Science and Sensibility.
ACNM’s preliminary review of the Chervenak/Grunebaum findings. This includes a comment on MANA Stats.
Citizens For Midwifery's summary of the findings.

NEW TODAY:

The Daily Beast’s look at how “alarmist studies . . . from data pulled from vital-statistics data” are getting in the way of ensuring safety for mothers and babies, from the Daily Beast. 

Citations:
Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. (2009). Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 36(3):180-9.

COMMENTERS PLEASE NOTE:

The only comments that have not been published have been because the author did not leave a first and last name. Please check our community guidelines if you have any questions.

New Studies Confirm Safety of Home Birth With Midwives in the U.S.

Posted by Midwives Alliance on January 30th, 2014

by Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN, Executive Director, Midwives Alliance of North America

In today’s peer-reviewed Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health (JMWH), a landmark study** confirms that among low-risk women, planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies.

This study, which examines nearly 17,000 courses of midwife-led care, is the largest analysis of planned home birth in the U.S. ever published.

The results of this study, and those of its companion article about the development of the MANA Stats registry, confirm the safety and overwhelmingly positive health benefits for low-risk mothers and babies who choose to birth at home with a midwife. At every step of the way, midwives are providing excellent care. This study enables families, providers and policymakers to have a transparent look at the risks and benefits of planned home birth as well as the health benefits of normal physiologic birth.

Of particular note is a cesarean rate of 5.2%, a remarkably low rate when compared to the U.S. national average of 31% for full-term pregnancies. When we consider the well-known health consequences of a cesarean -- not to mention the exponentially higher costs -- this study brings a fresh reminder of the benefits of midwife-led care outside of our overburdened hospital system.

Home birth mothers had much lower rates of interventions in labor. While some interventions are necessary for the safety and health of the mother or baby, many are overused, are lacking scientific evidence of benefit, and even carry their own risks. Cautious and judicious use of intervention results in healthier outcomes and easier recovery, and this is an area in which midwives excel. Women who planned a home birth had fewer episiotomies, pitocin for labor augmentation, and epidurals.

Most importantly, their babies were born healthy and safe. Ninety-seven percent of babies were carried to full-term, they weighed an average of eight pounds at birth, and nearly 98% were being breastfed at the six-week postpartum visit with their midwife. Only 1% of babies required transfer to the hospital after birth, most for non-urgent conditions. Babies born to low-risk mothers had no higher risk of death in labor or the first few weeks of life than those in comparable studies of similarly low-risk pregnancies. 

Importantly, this study also sheds light on factors that may increase risk. These findings are consistent with other research on pregnancy complications, but the numbers of these pregnancies were low in the MANA Stats dataset, making it impossible to make clear recommendations. This article from Citizens for Midwifery contains important information to share with families who are contemplating their birth options and weighing their individual risks and benefits.

This study is critically important at a time when many deeply-flawed and misleading studies about home birth have been receiving media attention. Previous studies have relied on birth certificate data, which only capture the final place of birth (regardless of where a woman intended to give birth). The MANA Stats dataset is based on the gold standard -- the medical record. As a result, this study provides a much-needed look at the outcomes of women who intended to give birth at home (regardless of whether they ultimately transferred to hospital care). The MANA Stats data reflects not only the outcomes of mothers and babies who birthed at home, but also includes those who transferred to the hospital during a planned home birth, resolving a common concern about home birth data.

This study adds to the large and growing body of research that has found that planned home birth with a midwife is not only safe for babies and mothers with low-risk pregnancies, but results in health and cost benefits that reach far beyond one pregnancy. We invite you to share this news in your communities, and join the conversation on our Facebook page, Twitter, and Pinterest

We are grateful to the ongoing support of the Foundation for the Advancement of Midwifery, which has been a major funder of the MANA Statistics Project.

** Note added 12:33 EST when the issue was published:

MANA Statistics Project Update

Posted by MANA Community Manager on January 24th, 2014

We’re incredibly excited to tell you that on January 30th, next Thursday, the much-anticipated outcomes from our MANA Stats 2004-2009 dataset will be publicly released.  

Two articles will be published in the upcoming Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health: one describes the MANA Stats system and how it works, and the other describes the outcomes of planned home births with midwives between 2004 and 2009.  

The Midwives Alliance is proud of our Division of Research and the amazing MANA Stats system. This is the largest registry of planned home births in the U.S. and one of only two large datasets where normal physiologic birth can be studied, and we thank all of the contributor midwives who have made this possible. We also thank the members of the MANA Division of Research who created the system, continually improved it over the years, and have put quality assurance processes in place to make sure the data are sound.  And finally, we thank the researchers who shepherded these articles down the long road to publication.  We’re looking forward to the important conversations that these articles will generate!

For an in-depth look at what to expect from the articles, check out the post Understanding MANA Stats here.

Watch here for an update next Thursday, when we’ll share with you a summary of the findings, links to the research, and materials to share with women, families and others interested in learning more about home birth.

image credit: www.sweetbirths.com

HUMANizing Birth

Posted by Midwives Alliance on January 16th, 2014

Tell a man that he could possibly have a heart attack when making love. Then tell him that it would be safer for him to come to the hospital and make love while being monitored by a physician. Do you think a doctor coming in to take his blood pressure and monitor his heart every 10 minutes would affect his performance?

This is the question Saraswathi Vedam asks when giving an analogy about women and their birth choices.

In many cases, women birth in an unfamiliar environment and are separated from their loved ones during labor. In an unfamiliar place with unfamiliar people, women are expected to perform at their very best and deliver on someone else’s time.

Even zoo animals do not have to experience such a thing.

But why do so many mothers?

Watch more of Vedam and her talk on HUMANizing Birth here:

Speaker bio:

Saraswathi Vedam, RM, FACNM, MSN, Sci D (h.c.) is Associate Professor of Midwifery at University of British Columbia. She serves as Senior Advisor to the MANA Division of Research, ACNM representative the MANA-ACNM Liaison Council, and Interim Executive Board Member, Canadian Association of Midwifery Educators.

She is also a co-author of two upcoming research articles on the largest dataset on planned home births in the United States. To learn more about the research, click here.

Blog post author bio:

Iola Kostrzewski is a volunteer online community manager for Midwives Alliance of North America. She is a doula and Midwifery student starting in September. She is mom of two boys and creator of Breastfeeding in Color. Her passions in birth pertain to birthing and breastfeeding outcomes within the African American community.