Skip to main content

Happy IBCLC Day from MANA!

Posted by MANA Community Manager on March 5th, 2014

Topics  

Today is IBCLC Day! 

This year, the International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA) is honoring the day by “taking this opportunity to thank the International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) that have made a difference in our lives.”

We know that many aspects of the midwifery model of care result in very high breastfeeding rates among midwifery clients. The recent study by the Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health found that women who intended to give birth at home had exceptional breastfeeding outcomes. At six weeks postpartum, more than 97% of newborns were at least partially breastfed and 86% were exclusively breastfed.

Despite the many practices of midwives that encourage breastfeeding, some women still experience breastfeeding challenges. This can be the result of anatomical issues (like tongue tie, flat or inverted nipples, or previous breast surgeries), medical issues (premature infants, infants with disabilities, or mothers with illness or disabilities), or just the process of learning a new skill.

For example, Treesa McLean, a Licensed Midwife in California, works in consultation with an IBCLC in her community if a baby has special needs. “Premature infants or babies with disabilities may need extra breastfeeding help. I trust our IBCLCs to support moms who need it.”

Other times, a midwife might have the knowledge base to provide a family with support, but time limitations. “If I am at a birth and a mother needs immediate help, I’ll refer her to a local IBCLC,” said Washington State-based midwife Louisa Wales, LM, CPM.. “Or if I think she’s going to need ongoing care that would be better provided by someone who focuses exclusively on breastfeeding.”

Most midwives have stories to tell about how International Board Certified Lactation Consultants have helped improve outcomes for families. Take today to thank IBCLCs in your community! Share your story of working with IBCLCs in the Facebook post here. You can also show your gratitude by clicking share and posting on the Facebook “wall” of an IBCLC that has helped you and the families with whom you work.

 

Black History Month 2014 Is Ending, But Health Disparities Continue

Posted by Midwives Alliance on February 25th, 2014

Opportunities to make change year round

During the month of February, MANA has been highlighting birth workers of color and their role in improving outcomes for mothers and babies.

Although Black History Month ends this week, the impacts of health disparities in the U.S. continue year round.

MANA would like to bring attention to one national effort to create health equity: scholarships for birth workers of color.

The Birth Workers of Color Scholarship "Grand Challenge" is asking every midwifery program in the U.S. to offer one scholarship per year to women of color. As the site says:

"A midwife for every woman. That is our grand ideal. But what if you are a woman of color in America, where is your midwife from your unique culture?"

If you operate a midwifery training organization, please consider adding a scholarship today. For all of us there are many ways to get involved:

  • Raise awareness. Share the site widely and call on the organization that trained you to offer a scholarship.
  • Offer your assistance as a mentor or preceptor.
  • Offer scholarships for workshops or other trainings you provide.

This project is being spearheaded by Claudia Booker, CPM, Jennie Joseph, CPM, LM and Vicki Penwell, CPM, LM. Learn more at the Birth Workers of Color Scholarship site here.

Educate yourself and your community on maternal child health disparity in the U.S.

When the Bough Breaks free viewings extended for 2014.

To honor Black History Month in 2013 MANA created the opportunity for members, friends, and the community at large to have free access to When The Bough Breaks, a groundbreaking documentary that explores why black babies in the U.S. are more than twice as likely to die, be born too soon, or too small.

MANA has extended this opportunity for 2014. To learn more, email socialjustice@mana.org today.

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: