HypnoBirthing® Outcomes

United States, 2005-2010

 

Between October 2005 and October 2010, the HypnoBirthing Institute received 2001 Parents’ Birth Reports from United States.

 

For comparison, HypnoBirthing® data are compared to Listening to Mothers II Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection, October 2006, www.childbirthconnection.org/listeningtomothers, (hereafter abbreviated as LTM II.) Limited comparison data are also available from “Births: Final Data for 2007”, by Joyce A. Martin, M.P.H.; Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D.; Paul D. Sutton Ph.D.; Stephanie J. Ventura, M.A.; T.J. Mathews, M.S.; Sharon Kirmeyer, Ph.D.; and Michelle J.K. Osterman M.H.S.; Division of Vital Statistics. National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 58, Number 24 August, 2010

 

Figure 1. Labor interventions:

HypnoBirthing® mothers used far fewer interventions during their labors than mothers in the comparison groups:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Cesarean section:

HypnoBirthing® mothers experienced surgical birth (Cesarean section) at a much lower rate (17%) than that reported by LTM II (32%) or the U.S Division of Vital Statistics (31.8%). Data does not differentiate between primary and repeat Cesareans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice of Care Provider:

45% of HypnoBirthing® mothers who birthed vaginally chose obstetricians and 57% chose midwives, including CNMs and direct entry midwives. By comparison 79% of the respondents to LTM II were attended by obstetricians.

 

93% of HypnoBirthing mothers rated the quality of supportive care they received from their care providers as “good” or “excellent.” 86% percent rated the supportive care from nursing staff at the hospital or birthing center “good” or “excellent.”

 

Birth Place:

LTM II and US Vital Statistics show reported less than 1% of births took place at home or in a free-standing birth center. 7% of HypnoBirthing® mothers birthed at home and 6% chose a free-standing birth center, with the remainder birthing in hospitals.

 

Figure 3. Gestational Age: Gestational age for HypnoBirthing babies shows a more bell-shaped distribution than the national data. That is most likely due to the lower rate of labor induction for HypnoBirthing.

** US Vital Statistics does not differentiate between 37 and 40 weeks

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Low Birth Weight and Large Infants: HypnoBirthing mothers reported fewer low birth weight babies and more large babies than indicated by LTM II and the U.S. Division of Vital Statistics. The fact that more HypnoBirthing babies are born beyond 40 weeks may certainly contribute to the differences, but the two comparison groups include a much wider cross section of the population and the differences are most likely due many factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. HypnoBirthing mothers’ comfort in labor:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Statements: Mothers were asked to rate a series of statements about how they perceived HypnoBirthing benefitted them. Below are the percentages who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction with the birthing experience:

500 women wrote responses to the question “Apart from meeting your new baby, what was the best thing about your experience of giving birth? “ The answers most often mentioned feeling powerful, competent, having their partner very involved and supportive, and very often included comments about the ease and comfort of labor and birthing . 77% said they would definitely use HypnoBirthing again and 19% said they may or may not. 87% said they would recommend HypnoBirthing to others.

 

 

Kathie Dolce, MS, PA, HBCE

HypnoBirthing® Institute