 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Myth Buster: Do Headlines Lie?
There’s nothing that can make a birth junkie’s blood boil faster than reading stories about childbirth in the popular
press (except perhaps watching A Baby Story or Maternity Ward on TV). Its not that we don’t want to believe that
epidurals don’t impact the length or outcome of labor or that inducing every birth will cut the c-section rate in half –
there are times when we truly wish that the next scientific advance or new technique really would help keep moms
and babies safer and more well. It is just that when we read these headlines we can hear them echoing again and
again in our future conversations – in our childbirth classes when moms are challenged by the idea that low-
intervention birth is safe, in our prenatal visits when parents are afraid of taking a low-tech approach or trusting their
bodies when everyone else in the prenatal yoga class with them has already had their c-sections scheduled or is going
in for ultrasounds to see if the baby is too big to birth, and in the heat of the moment when our doula clients are being
told by their obstetricians that there are no negative side effects to the drugs they are about to accept for their pain.
There wouldn’t be a problem if they were actually true. But the truth is that for the moment, the things that have
been true about birth for the past millennia are still true – that birth goes best more of the time when it is unhindered
and unforced, that interventions can be life-saving but are often over-used, and that drug-based pain relief can offer a
lot in the way of comfort to a mom but sometimes will impede a labor.
The headline often conforms instead to what mainstream society wishes were true – that pain-relieving drugs really
wouldn’t have negative impacts, that controlling the labor process makes it safer, and that there is a way to save
every baby and mom from a bad outcome. But when we look deeper into these stories and take a critical glance at
the scientific studies that preceded them, we often find that there is some disconnect between what the study found
and what the news story reported. Also, sometimes when we look even deeper, we find disturbing conflicts of
interest or manipulation of results.
One common problem that occurs in these studies is comparing apples to oranges. Two very well-known studies in
the relatively recent past came up with results that have helped set very influential policies in the medical childbirth
world – the Pang homebirth study in Washington State and the Hannah Term Breech Trial.
The Pang study found that the death rate for homebirth babies in Washington was much higher than the death rate
for low-risk babies in a hospital setting. However, that study simply looked at the result from birth certificates and
recorded the place of birth – the homebirth group included planned homebirths but also babies who had born
unassisted, even babies born to moms who had no prenatal care. How could the risk of those births be determined to
match the hospital group?
In the Hannah study, it seemed that c-section was a safer delivery method than vaginal birth for breech babies. The
results held up for several years and contributed to the virtual vanishing of vaginal birth options for moms carrying
breech babies, especially in the hospital setting. A closer look revealed, though, that more babies with birth defects
were included in the vaginal group than in the c-section group and that when those babies were removed from the
analysis, the results were very different.
This Mythbusters column was inspired by a much more recent headline – “A New Way to Reduce C-Section Risk.”
You can read the whole story by following a link on the Birthproject blog at thebirthproject.blogspot.com. The article
makes it seem like if all women were induced at the point where their labors were determined to be most successful
(a point most likely determined by frequent ultrasounds, other technological monitoring, and vaginal exams) then the
c-section rate could be reduced to a low rate of just over 5%. If this were true it would be completely fantastic,
given that the 2006 c-section rate was over 31% nationally.
The first clue that the study might be a little bit fishy is the fact that it was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company
that makes prostaglandins – the substances used in medical labor inductions. Another clue is the low c-section rate
of the control group – 11.8 percent. How could the conclusions of this study be applied to the birthing population as
a whole if the control group is so different from the general population today?
Looking at the abstract of the study provides some clues – the study took the experiences of a very rural population,
collected the information after the fact, and had data in it that is now as much as 15 years old. So much has changed
in technological childbirth in the past 15 years – the ballooning c-section rate, for example, it is hard to draw
conclusions about what kind of birth a mom in rural Pennsylvania circa 1993 would have today.
You would also expect that a study that showed the benefit of inductions and deduced that making an induction plan
for all women was highly beneficial would have a lot of inductions, right? The story about this study makes it seem
like that was true as well, but when you look at the study itself, the control group was induced 20.4% of the time and
the group with the lower c-section rate was induced 31.4% of the time. If you compare that to our modern
induction rates, which approach 50% of all births, it really changes the interpretation. The difference between the
control group and the treatment group is also not all that large.
The moral of the story is, if something challenges the things you know to be true about birth, dig deeper. You don’t
know what you might uncover.
Stacia Proefrock
From Winter 2008 Issue V
There’s nothing that can make a birth junkie’s blood boil faster than reading stories about childbirth in the popular
press (except perhaps watching A Baby Story or Maternity Ward on TV). Its not that we don’t want to believe that
epidurals don’t impact the length or outcome of labor or that inducing every birth will cut the c-section rate in half –
there are times when we truly wish that the next scientific advance or new technique really would help keep moms
and babies safer and more well. It is just that when we read these headlines we can hear them echoing again and
again in our future conversations – in our childbirth classes when moms are challenged by the idea that low-
intervention birth is safe, in our prenatal visits when parents are afraid of taking a low-tech approach or trusting their
bodies when everyone else in the prenatal yoga class with them has already had their c-sections scheduled or is going
in for ultrasounds to see if the baby is too big to birth, and in the heat of the moment when our doula clients are being
told by their obstetricians that there are no negative side effects to the drugs they are about to accept for their pain.
There wouldn’t be a problem if they were actually true. But the truth is that for the moment, the things that have
been true about birth for the past millennia are still true – that birth goes best more of the time when it is unhindered
and unforced, that interventions can be life-saving but are often over-used, and that drug-based pain relief can offer a
lot in the way of comfort to a mom but sometimes will impede a labor.
The headline often conforms instead to what mainstream society wishes were true – that pain-relieving drugs really
wouldn’t have negative impacts, that controlling the labor process makes it safer, and that there is a way to save
every baby and mom from a bad outcome. But when we look deeper into these stories and take a critical glance at
the scientific studies that preceded them, we often find that there is some disconnect between what the study found
and what the news story reported. Also, sometimes when we look even deeper, we find disturbing conflicts of
interest or manipulation of results.
One common problem that occurs in these studies is comparing apples to oranges. Two very well-known studies in
the relatively recent past came up with results that have helped set very influential policies in the medical childbirth
world – the Pang homebirth study in Washington State and the Hannah Term Breech Trial.
The Pang study found that the death rate for homebirth babies in Washington was much higher than the death rate
for low-risk babies in a hospital setting. However, that study simply looked at the result from birth certificates and
recorded the place of birth – the homebirth group included planned homebirths but also babies who had born
unassisted, even babies born to moms who had no prenatal care. How could the risk of those births be determined to
match the hospital group?
In the Hannah study, it seemed that c-section was a safer delivery method than vaginal birth for breech babies. The
results held up for several years and contributed to the virtual vanishing of vaginal birth options for moms carrying
breech babies, especially in the hospital setting. A closer look revealed, though, that more babies with birth defects
were included in the vaginal group than in the c-section group and that when those babies were removed from the
analysis, the results were very different.
This Mythbusters column was inspired by a much more recent headline – “A New Way to Reduce C-Section Risk.”
You can read the whole story by following a link on the Birthproject blog at thebirthproject.blogspot.com. The article
makes it seem like if all women were induced at the point where their labors were determined to be most successful
(a point most likely determined by frequent ultrasounds, other technological monitoring, and vaginal exams) then the
c-section rate could be reduced to a low rate of just over 5%. If this were true it would be completely fantastic,
given that the 2006 c-section rate was over 31% nationally.
The first clue that the study might be a little bit fishy is the fact that it was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company
that makes prostaglandins – the substances used in medical labor inductions. Another clue is the low c-section rate
of the control group – 11.8 percent. How could the conclusions of this study be applied to the birthing population as
a whole if the control group is so different from the general population today?
Looking at the abstract of the study provides some clues – the study took the experiences of a very rural population,
collected the information after the fact, and had data in it that is now as much as 15 years old. So much has changed
in technological childbirth in the past 15 years – the ballooning c-section rate, for example, it is hard to draw
conclusions about what kind of birth a mom in rural Pennsylvania circa 1993 would have today.
You would also expect that a study that showed the benefit of inductions and deduced that making an induction plan
for all women was highly beneficial would have a lot of inductions, right? The story about this study makes it seem
like that was true as well, but when you look at the study itself, the control group was induced 20.4% of the time and
the group with the lower c-section rate was induced 31.4% of the time. If you compare that to our modern
induction rates, which approach 50% of all births, it really changes the interpretation. The difference between the
control group and the treatment group is also not all that large.
The moral of the story is, if something challenges the things you know to be true about birth, dig deeper. You don’t
know what you might uncover.
Stacia Proefrock
From Winter 2008 Issue V
| Read for free! Email amanda@birthproject.com with your snail mail address and we will send you a free copy of the magazine to try us out. |
| Check out the subscriptions page to find out how to read year round! |
| The Birth Project |
| Thoughts on Birth |
| Submit your writings or art for our Winter 2008 issue. Deadline is December 15th 2008. Email your submissions to submissions@birthproject.com We would love to hear from you! |