Scientific inquiry and authoritarianism in perinatal care and education

Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

BACKGROUND

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.  SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.

A Politics of Objectivity: Biomedicine's Attempts to Grapple with "non-financial" Conflicts of Interest

Increasingly, policymakers within biomedicine argue that "non-financial" interests should be given equal scrutiny to individuals' financial relationships with industry. Problematized as "non-financial conflicts of interest," interests, ranging from intellectual commitments to personal beliefs, are managed through disclosure, restrictions on participation, and recusal where necessary. "Non-financial" interests, though vaguely and variably defined, are characterized as important influences on judgment and thus, are considered risks to scientific objectivity. This article explores the ways that "non-financial interests" have been constructed as an ethical problem and the implications for research integrity. I conducted an interpretive, qualitative study, which triangulated two data sources: documents (including published accounts of identifying and managing "non-financial" interests and conflict of interest policies) and in-depth interviews with 16 leaders within evidence-based medicine, responsible for contributing to, directing, or overseeing conflict of interest policy development and implementation. This article outlines how evolutions in the definition of conflict of interest have opened the door to include myriad "non-financial" interests, resulting in the generalisation of a statistical concept-risk of bias-to social contexts. Consequently, biases appear equally pervasive among participants while in reality, a politics of objectivity is at play, with allegations of conflict of interest used as a means to undermine others' credibility, or even participation. Iterations of the concept of conflict of interest within biomedicine have thus consistently failed to articulate or address questions of accountability including whose interests are able to dominate or distort evidence-led processes and why. Consequently, current policy solutions meant to mitigate bias may instead serve exclusionary purposes under the guise of impartiality while remaining vulnerable to interference from powerful stakeholders.

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is properly perceived but its application is still limited in the orthopedic clinical practice: an online survey among the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) members

PURPOSE

To evaluate the knowledge and awareness of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) among members of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed that explored the following areas: (i) respondents' attitudes to EBM; (ii) their motivation to implement EBM in daily practice; (iii) their educational background, knowledge and skills related to accessing and interpreting information; (iv) their level of attention to, and use of, scientific literature; (v) access to and availability of evidence; (vi) perceived barriers in using EBM in clinical practice. The resulting data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the correlation between age, educational background and country was further investigated.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and eighty-eight ESSKA members (11% of the total population) compiled the questionnaire. The participants covered all the five continents and an expected prevalence of European professionals (77%) was observed. The vast majority of participants were medical doctors (91%), mainly specialized in knee surgery with minimal involvement in research. 97% of the participants declared having some knowledge of EBM, acquired mainly during their professional education, with some geographical differences. The youngest clinicians and those from Eastern Europe reported the greatest difficulty in using EBM in daily practice. The application of EBM in clinical practice is positively affected by the time dedicated to research and negatively correlates with the time dedicated to patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this survey highlight the need for further investigation into the main reasons behind the limited diffusion of the EBM approach, despite the medical community's knowledge and interest in the concept. A wider application of EMB would upgrade clinical practice, linking medical knowledge and scientific evidence to patients' needs which would result of benefit to patients, but also more in general to the health system.

Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation

This paper identifies deficiencies in some current practices of causation and risk evaluation by toxicologists and formulates an evidence-based solution. The practice of toxicology focuses on adverse health events caused by physical or chemical agents. Some relations between agents and events are identified risks, meaning unwanted events known to occur at some frequency. However, other relations that are only possibilities – not known to occur (and may never be realized) – also are sometimes called risks and are even expressed quantitatively. The seemingly slight differences in connotation among various uses of the word ‘risk’ conceal deeply philosophic differences in the epistemology of harm. We label as ‘nomological possibilities’ (not as risks) all predictions of harm that are known not to be physically or logically impossible. Some of these nomological possibilities are known to be causal. We term them ‘epistemic’. Epistemic possibilities are risks. The remaining nomological possibilities are called ‘uncertainties’. Distinguishing risks (epistemic relationships) from among all nomological possibilities requires knowledge of causation. Causality becomes knowable when scientific experiments demonstrate, in a strong, consistent (repeatable), specific, dose-dependent, coherent, temporal and predictive manner that a change in a stimulus determines an asymmetric, directional change in the effect. Many believe that a similar set of characteristics, popularly called the ‘Hill Criteria’, make it possible, if knowledge is robust, to infer causation from only observational (nonexperimental) studies, where allocation of test subjects or items is not under the control of the investigator.

Until the 1980s, medical decisions about diagnosis, prevention, treatment or harm were often made authoritatively. Rather than employing a rigorous evaluation of causal relationships and applying these criteria to the published knowledge, the field of medicine was dominated by authority-based opinions, expressed by experts (or consensus groups of experts) relying on their education, training, experience, wisdom, prestige, intuition, skill and improvisation. In response, evidence-based medicine (EBM) was developed, to make a conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in deciding about the care of individual patients. Now globally embraced, EBM employs a structured, ‘transparent’ protocol for carrying out a deliberate, objective, unbiased and systematic review of the evidence about a formally framed question. Not only in medicine, but now in dentistry, engineering and other fields that have adapted the methods of EBM, it is the quality of the evidence and the rigor of the analysis through evidence-based logic (EBL), rather than the professional standing of the reviewer, that leads to evidence-based conclusions about what is known. Recent studies have disclosed that toxicologists (individually or in expert groups), not unlike their medical counterparts prior to EBM, show distressing variations in their biases with regard to data selection, data interpretation and data evaluation when performing reviews for causation analyses. Moreover, toxicologists often fail to acknowledge explicitly (particularly in regulatory and policymaking arenas) when shortcomings in the evidence necessitate reliance upon authority-based opinions, rather than evidence-based conclusions (Guzelian PS, Guzelian CP. Authority-based explanation. Science 2004; 303: 1468-69). Accordingly, for answering questions about general and specific causation, we have constructed a framework for evidence-based toxicology (EBT), derived from the accepted principles of EBM and expressed succinctly as three stages, comprising 12 total steps. These are: 1) collecting and evaluating the relevant data (Source, Exposure, Dose, Diagnosis); 2) collecting and evaluating the relevant knowledge (Frame the question, Assemble the relevant (delimited) literature, Assess and critique the literature); and 3) Joining data with knowledge to arrive at a conclusion (General causation – answer to the framed question, Dose-response, Timing, Alternative cause, Coherence). The second of these stages (which amounts to an analysis of general causation), is addressed by an EBM-styled approach (adapted for the infrequent availability of human experimental studies in environmental toxicology). This involves assembling literature (through documented algorithms for database queries), excluding irrelevancies by use of delimiters as filters, and ranking and rating the remaining articles for strength of study design and for quality of execution gauged by application of either a ready-made quality assessment instrument or a custom designed checklist or scale. The results of this systematic review (including a structured review of relevant animal and in vitro studies) are then themselves systematically used to determine which causation criteria are fulfilled.

Toxicology is maturing from a derivative science largely devoted to routinized performance and interpretation of safety tests, to a discipline deeply enmeshed in the remarkable advances in biochemistry and molecular biology to better understanding the nature and mechanism of adverse effects caused by chemicals. It is time for toxicologists, like scientists in other fields, to formalize a method for differentiating settled toxicological knowledge of risk from mere nomological possibility, and for communicating their conclusions to other scientists and the public. It is time for EBT.

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth

BACKGROUND

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new randomised controlled trials.

Evidence-based (informed) macro practice: process and philosophy

Evidence-informed practice and policy at the macro level offers great potential for honoring ethical guidelines to integrate practice and research, to involve clients as informed participants, to respond ethically to problems of scarce resources, to enhance social and economic justice, and to empower clients. The process and philosophy of evidence-informed practice and care as described in original sources suggest a decision-making process designed to help social workers to integrate ethical, evidentiary, and application concerns. As with all innovations, objections will and should be raised. There are many challenges and obstacles to integrating evidentiary, ethical, and application concerns in practice.

'With woman' philosophy: examining the evidence, answering the questions

'With woman', 'woman centred' and 'in partnership with women' are new terms associated with midwifery care in Australia, and the underlying philosophy has emerged both as an antidote to the medicalisation of pregnancy and in a bid to reacquaint women with their natural capacity to give birth successfully and without intervention. A reorientation of midwifery services in the 1990s, a shift towards midwifery-led care (MLC) and the subsequent introduction of direct entry midwifery programs all contributed to this new direction. Central concepts are a focus on the childbearing woman and a valuing of women's experiences. While this philosophical re-alignment has been applauded by many midwives in terms of maternal empowerment and improved autonomy for midwives, there are nonetheless some concerns that, with its emphasis on normality, midwifery-led care is in danger of becoming an exclusionary model. Particular concerns include meeting the needs of a growing cohort of women, those with 'high risk' pregnancies, and the educational adequacy of direct entry midwifery programs. To date, there has been no thorough evaluation of this emerging midwifery philosophy in Australia. In order to open the debate, this paper aims to initiate a discussion of 'with woman' midwifery care as it applies to Australian practice.

Equipoise: a case study of the views of clinicians involved in two neonatal trials

BACKGROUND

It is considered to be a fundamental ethical premise of human experimentation, that it should be carried out only where the effects of an intervention are unclear. The point at which it is considered that there is insufficient scientific and medical evidence to clearly state the superiority of an intervention has been termed equipoise. This concept has been the subject of much recent impassioned debate but little empirical research about the views of people involved in recruitment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and none in the particularly emotive area of neonatal intensive care.

METHODS

Thirty neonatologists recruiting into one or both of two neonatal RCTs in five centres in England were interviewed using a semi-structured schedule to explore their involvement in randomised trials. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Equipoise was one among a range of topics covered. Concepts relating to equipoise were identified by close reading of the entire interviews. Themes emerging from the data were noted in their contexts then discussed between the co-authors. Interviewees also completed a brief questionnaire about their demographic background, and their experience of research and RCTs.

RESULTS

Almost all the neonatologists used the concept of equipoise [using words and phrases such as uncertainty, lack of knowledge (or ignorance), strengths of views, and balancing of pros and cons] in their interview and, for most of them, equipoise seemed to be a useful term. They explored ideas about equipoise at the individual and community levels, and some linked equipoise with notions of the responsibility that should be exercised by the scientific and professional communities. They differed in the importance they gave to individual equipoise, and in how they reacted to threats to equipoise. Feelings of doubt about a trial and disturbed equipoise were more often expressed by more junior doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the concept of equipoise goes beyond the idea of uncertainty. In part this is because it includes the balancing of benefit and harm; this balancing is part of a professional obligation and requires engagement with 'expert' knowledge. Equipoise could therefore be seen as 'active' or 'responsible' uncertainty. Elucidation of this difficult concept may help to facilitate recruitment for both clinicians and parents in future trials and thereby help to find answers to important clinical questions.

The architecture of evidence-based gynaecology

Modern evidence-based medicine (EBM) and its predecessor 'Medecin d'Observation' both emphasise that potential advances in healthcare must be researched and proven to do more good than harm using the principles of clinical epidemiology before they are incorporated into medical practice. EBM is considered an important advance in improving clinical care in gynaecology but EBM skills have traditionally not been covered in undergraduate or postgraduate education. Therefore there is a perceived need to compile texts on various aspects of gynaecological practice using EBM principles. This is what these two issues of the Best Practice series hope to achieve. The various chapters will provide readers with clinical advice generated from critically appraised information that has been identified as addressing relevant questions.

Study control, violators, inclusion criteria and defining explanatory and pragmatic trials

Important differences between explanatory and pragmatic studies were originally argued by Schwartz and Lellouch. Three important differences between the two types of study involve study control, study violators and inclusion criteria. It was originally argued that explanatory studies are highly controlled, and pragmatic studies may be looser and more like 'real life'. It was argued that an explanatory study should only analyse those receiving treatment, and a pragmatic study would analyse all randomized patients. Explanatory trials are said to use homogeneous groups, and pragmatic studies have less selection (better generalizability). Some suggestions are put forward to update the original distinctions between these two attitudes for future study design. Poor study control is undesirable (but might be necessary) and should not be welcomed as pragmatic. The intention-to-treat strategy is now considered as standard for nearly all trials. Homogeneity is a red herring for studies in humans. Inclusion criteria should be minimized and they should not be used to justify claims of representativeness. Routine criticism of randomized controlled trials for being unrepresentative is unwarranted. We should accept that most trials in humans are 'explanatory'. The division line should be moved, so that pragmatic studies are in the domain of non-therapeutics and complex treatments.

Some popular versions of uninformed consent

A patient's informed consent is required by the Nuremberg code, and its successors, before she can be entered into a clinical trial. However, concern has been expressed by both patients and professionals about the beneficial or detrimental effect on the patient of asking for her consent. We examine advantages and drawbacks of popular variations on consent, which might reduce the stress on patients at the point of illness. Both informed and uninformed responses to particular trials, and trials in general, are discussed. The selection by doctors of patients, to whom entry to trials will be offered, is explored. Alternative forms of consent require restrictions on patients' knowledge, personal responsibility and freedom of choice.

Evaluating the benefits of a patient information video during the informed consent process

The study objective was to evaluate the effect of a patient information video during the informed consent process of a perinatal trial. Ninety women, between 19 and 33 weeks gestation, were randomised to receive written information about this perinatal trial and watch an information video or to receive written information only. Participants completed a questionnaire immediately after entry and 2-4 weeks later assessing knowledge of; feelings about the worth of; and willingness for future participation in the perinatal trial. When initially asked, more women who watched the video thought they would consent to the study (chi 2 = 6.3; df = 1; P = 0.01). No differences in knowledge about the perinatal trial were found initially, but 2-4 weeks later more knowledge had been retained by women who had watched the video (chi 2 = 6.7; df = 1; P = 0.01). These results suggest that a patient information video combined with an information sheet may result in greater participation in a research trial and may increase women's knowledge of a specific health problem and related research trial.

Lamaze and Bradley childbirth classes: contrasting perspectives toward the medical model of birth

BACKGROUND

Although many studies have evaluated the outcomes of childbirth education, few have seriously considered the content of the classes or considered any curriculum other than Lamaze. This study contrasts the perspectives of Lamaze and Bradley childbirth classes toward the medical model of birth.

METHODS

Four full series of Lamaze and four full series of Bradley classes were observed, and 31 women enrolled in the classes were interviewed.

RESULTS

Bradley classes were more likely than Lamaze classes to criticize aspects of the conventional hospital birth experience, such as routine electronic fetal monitoring and episiotomy, and to accept the validity of alternatives, such as home birth. Bradley classes were also more explicit in encouraging women to question or resist the judgment of their physician. Women enrolled in Lamaze classes experienced more medical intervention during childbirth than women enrolled in Bradley classes, and the latter seemed to attract women opposed to medical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Although not generalizable, these results provide greater insight into the contrasting perspectives to which birthing women are exposed in childbirth education classes and the process through which these perspectives are communicated.

The Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth database. Implications for perinatal care policy and practice in the United States

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database (CCPC) is the most sophisticated realization of the meta-analytic potential within the health fields. At the core of this ongoing collaborative international project are about 600 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of specific forms of perinatal care, which have been created from a registry of clinical trials. The scale and quality of information available through CCPC are unprecedented. An examination of implications of CCPC suggests that many far-reaching changes in perinatal policy and practice are indicated. CCPC has become a model for similar work that is being organized in many other clinical areas under the umbrella of the pan-clinical Cochrane Collaboration, and the experience and implications of CCPC will be of interest to many working in other areas. The implications of these ambitious meta-analytic projects are profound; the degree to which they will be realized is less certain.

Benefits and risks of episiotomy: a review of the English-language literature since 1980. Part II

Mediolateral and, to a lesser degree, midline episiotomies substantially increase the amount of blood loss at delivery; in fact, simple avoidance of episiotomy may be the most powerful means the delivery attendant has to prevent excessive intrapartum hemorrhage. The long-term morbidity of the anal sphincter damage induced by episiotomy, particularly midline, has generally been underestimated in both its frequency and severity. Other potential fetal and maternal complications of episiotomies, although rare, are numerous and serious. The overall degree of risk that accompanies this procedure could only be justified by a clear and overriding benefit, which, as discussed under "Benefits" earlier in this review, does not appear to exist.

Benefits and risks of episiotomy: a review of the English-language literature since 1980. Part I

The professional literature on the benefits and risks of episiotomy was last reviewed critically in 1983, encompassing material published through 1980. This paper reviews the evidence accumulated since then. (Part II follows in this issue.) It is concluded that episiotomies prevent anterior perineal lacerations (which carry minimal morbidity), but fail to accomplish any of the other maternal or fetal benefits traditionally ascribed, including prevention of perineal damage and its sequelae, prevention of pelvic floor relaxation and its sequelae, and protection of the newborn from either intracranial hemorrhage or intrapartum asphyxia. In the process of affording this one small advantage, the incision substantially increases maternal blood loss, the average depth of posterior perineal injury, the risk of anal sphincter damage and its attendant long-term morbidity (at least for midline episiotomy), the risk of improper perineal wound healing, and the amount of pain in the first several postpartum days.

Research and the practice of midwifery

During the past decade, the professional journals have contained numerous papers authored by nurses and nurse-researchers describing the gap which persists between research and clinical practice. Problems have been highlighted and challenges explored in the quest to discover ways of encouraging practitioners to become more aware of research evidence as a knowledge base for practice. Many of the identified issues may be transposed into a midwifery setting but other factors may be recognized which are specific to the practice of midwifery. This paper considers both conceptual and pragmatic issues in an attempt to explore the complexity of the influences which may affect the integration of research into midwifery practice.

Mode of delivery and neonatal death in 17,587 infants presenting by the breech

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of caesarean section on neonatal mortality in infants presenting by the breech.

DESIGN

Population-based non-experimental comparison of infants presenting by the breech born vaginally with those born by caesarean section. Neonatal mortality rates were calculated for 250 g birthweight intervals. Weight-specific relative risks (RRs) were further adjusted for birthweight in 50 g categories.

SETTING

New York City, 1978-1983. Data came from the Department of Health's computerized vital records on livebirths and infant deaths.

SUBJECTS

17,587 singleton breech livebirths greater than or equal to 500 g birthweight, with congenital anomaly deaths excluded. 6178 were born vaginally and 11409 were born by caesarean section.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Birthweight-specific and birthweight-adjusted neonatal mortality.

RESULTS

At birthweights of 501 to 1750 g, the risk of neonatal death for breech infants born vaginally was significantly higher than the risk for those born by caesarean section (weight-adjusted RR = 1.7). For breech infants with birthweights over 3000 g, the weight-adjusted risk was 5.6 times greater for a vaginal birth compared with caesarean section. The addition of 16 additional control variables in multiple logistic regression analyses did not change these RRs.

CONCLUSION

Population-based studies indicate that an increase in the caesarean section rate among breech singletons may be associated with increased neonatal survival, but a large multicentre randomized trial of management of breech presentation would answer the question much more definitively.

Support in pregnancy

Both observational studies and nonrandomized controlled trials have found the presence of support during pregnancy to be associated with superior outcomes in terms of preventing abortion, extending the length of gestation, and reducing interventions in labor. However, randomized controlled trials of supportive interventions in pregnancy have not demonstrated any physical benefits from the interventions. It is also unlikely there are any significant adverse effects. Psychological benefits do appear to result from supportive interventions, including better enjoyment of the pregnancy and better postnatal status.

'Normal but dead': perinatal mortality in non-malformed babies of birthweight 2.5 kg and over in the northern region in 1983

The case notes relating to 75 of the 91 perinatal deaths of nonmalformed babies of birthweight greater than or equal to 2.5 kg born in the Northern Region in 1983 were examined. The major groups involved antepartum deaths of unknown cause (40%), and deaths due to intrapartum anoxia or trauma (35%). A case-control study compared each of the 75 cases with two controls matched for place of birth, obtained by taking the next two babies born in the same maternity unit (excluding perinatal deaths, birthweight less than 2.5 kg, and malformations). Four factors were found to be significantly associated with risk of perinatal death in this group: primigravidity, parity greater than or equal to 3, not booked for antenatal care by 20 weeks, and corrected birthweight less than 3.2 kg (adjusted for gestation). Two further factors were related only to the risk of perinatal death consequent upon intrapartum events: labour post-term and malpresentation in labour. All four factors relevant to the whole group remained independently associated with risk of perinatal death after multivariate analysis by two techniques. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated as: primigravidity 2.1 (1.1 to 4.1); parity three or more 5.7 (1.9 to 17); not booked for antenatal care by 20 weeks 15.7 (3.0 to 81); and corrected birthweight less than 3.25 kg 2.5 (1.3 to 4.6). An avoidable factor, as defined, was detected in 50% of deaths. In 30% of deaths there was an avoidable factor (grade 2) such that absence may have been expected to lead to a different outcome had all other factors remained equal. Of the avoidable factors detected, 61% related to intrapartum management, as did 76% of the grade 2 factors. Most of these involved failure to respond to evidence of fetal distress in labour. The defined group constituted 21% of all perinatal deaths, suggesting that this is an important category, particularly as their potential for normal survival should otherwise have been high.

Effects of continuous intrapartum professional support on childbirth outcomes

The purpose of this stratified randomized trial was to determine the physical and psychological effects of continuous, one-to-one professional support on childbirth outcomes. Data were gathered during prenatal and postpartum interviews with, and from the medical records of, 103 low-risk women. All subjects had attended one of two types of prenatal education programs, were accompanied by husbands or partners during labor, and had vaginal deliveries. Subjects in the experimental group were less likely to have medication for pain relief and less likely to have episiotomies. Three variables were found to predict perceived control during childbirth--expectations of control, the presence of a continuous professional caregiver, and pain medication usage. The results demonstrate the importance of the traditional nursing support role during childbirth.

Methodological lessons from the Italian psychiatric experience

One of the main reasons why the Italian experience has been the object of much controversial attention in the international literature over the last decade lies in the ambiguity of the terms of reference used. Methodologically, it is of critical importance to re-establish the permanent dialectical relationship between the reality of the Italian experience, the prescription of the Law, and the administration of the reform. In this context, the evaluative variables are less the 'process' indicators of implementation of the reform, and more the qualitative 'outcome' assessment of the fate of the policy. The following concepts are discussed in detail, both in relation to Italy and to the broader status of psychiatry: de-Institutionalisation and de-hospitalisation; psychiatric hospital; rehabilitation-Home; Service-Services-Intervention; User; primary health care; evaluative research.

A failed RCT to determine the best method of delivery for very low birth weight infants

An RCT to determine the optimum method of delivery for very low birth weight (VLBW) infants was canceled after it had been in progress for only 5 months when it was discovered that more than 40% of eligible patients were being withdrawn from the trial before randomization. A review of hospital births before the trial began suggested that the trial was held too late: that a critical shift in obstetric practice towards abdominal delivery of VLBW infants had already occurred. Obtaining patient consent to participation, which had been the main predicted problem, was not difficult.