EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

Neonatal Mortality Risk Among Births in Freestanding Birth Centers, 2015 to 2024

Lauren Hoehn‐Velasco, Diana R. Jolles, Raka Datta

Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Introduction Births in freestanding birth centers have grown over the past decade, particularly during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Whether the safety profile of birth center births has remained stable as volumes have grown is an open question. This study examines neonatal mortality risk among births in freestanding birth centers compared with births in hospitals over the period 2015 to 2024. Methods This is a retrospective observational study using public‐use US Natality Detail Files from 2015 to 2024. The primary outcome is neonatal death. The sample is restricted to term, singleton, and vertex births without major medical risk factors. Logistic regressions are used to consider the odds of neonatal death by setting (freestanding birth centers relative to birth in hospitals) for each year (2015 to 2024). Results Across all 10 years in the sample, the adjusted odds ratio for neonatal death in freestanding birth centers fluctuated around 1.0, and no year showed a statistically significant difference in neonatal death between births in freestanding birth centers and hospitals. During the pandemic years (2020‐2021), when birth center volumes increased, odds ratios were below 1.0 (0.43 in 2020; 0.78 in 2021), providing no evidence that higher use of freestanding birth centers raised the risk of neonatal death. The relative safety pattern of birth centers was consistent and stable throughout the study period. Discussion Freestanding birth centers continue to demonstrate neonatal safety comparable with that of hospitals for low‐risk pregnancies. This pattern held through a period of substantial growth in birth center use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. These findings reinforce birth centers as a safe, evidence‐based option for well‐qualified low‐risk births and support policies that integrate birth centers into mainstream maternity care systems.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Lauren Hoehn‐Velasco, Diana R. Jolles, Raka Datta
Quelle
Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
1526-9523, 1542-2011
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Lauren Hoehn‐Velasco, Diana R. Jolles, Raka Datta (2026). Neonatal Mortality Risk Among Births in Freestanding Birth Centers, 2015 to 2024. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.70177
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1 · Lizenz 2