Big double page article by her in the Observer today complaining that mothers don't get unbiased information about birth choices. She talks primarily about the Place of Birth Study 2011 and the different ways its findings have been interpreted.
She says: 'Not surprisingly there were fewer interventions in the non-hospital settings. (this is something which is often put forward as a pro for homebirths, which I find odd, There are fewer forceps deliveries in home births because you can only do them in hospital. There are fewer - no - epidurals in home births, but that's to be expected, unless you happen to keep an anaesthetist in your cupboard for just such eventualities)'.
Now - surely, surely, she must have actually READ the study before writing a BIG article about it for a national newspaper?
But if she had read it she'd know that the intervention rates among the out of hospital mums in the study wasn't half that of similar mums giving birth in hospital because they can't do c-sections in birth centres or on the kitchen table at home. Surely she must know that women who opt for birth centres or homebirths whose labours become complicated GO TO HOSPITAL, and the interventions take place in these settings, but are included in the 'out of hospital' arm of the study?
I mean - that's a massive, fundamental misunderstanding to have made in the article isn't it? Why did nobody at the Observer spot it before it was printed?
It really worries me that so many people will take her opinion on this subject seriously because a) she's a doctor and b) she's being given a double page spread to talk about the issues in a national newspaper. And not realise how ill informed and biased she is.
Would add, she also has a little dig at the NCT here. She says that the way the NCT presents the birth place study 'prioritises the birth process over the risk to the baby'. An unfair accusation and an inaccurate one. The NCT clearly points out on its website that the Place of Birth study found that home birth is associated with an increase in the risk to the babies of first time mothers.
So in the process of complaining about mothers not having accurate information to make birth choices, Alice Roberts writes a poorly researched and inaccurate article, just to add to the confusion. It really is a shame.
AIBU?
In thinking Dr Alice Roberts is a bit thick?
Shagmundfreud · 10/03/2013 12:02
"Because otherwise the intervention rate would be zero as opposed to low?"
Correct.
Really - it's such a poor article.
If you have a look on the NCT website and look at the page about the Place of Birth study the paragraph on homebirth says this:
"Women planning a home birth were more likely than women planning for
birth in other settings to have a normal birth: 88% of planned home births are
?normal births? compared to just under 60% of planned obstetric unit births.
For women having a second or subsequent baby, home births are safe for the
baby and offer benefits for the mother.
For women having a first baby, a planned home birth increases the risk for the
baby somewhat."
She has taken the fact that the NCT don't mention the higher rates of poorer outcomes for first time mums giving birth at home until the third sentence of this very short statement as evidence that they prioritise normality of birth over the safety of babies. 
Apparently this makes the NCT's response to the Place of Birth Study 'spin'.
"No one should feel that having an epidural, a forceps delivery or a caesarean section is a failure"
Individual mothers shouldn't consider interventions a sign of personal failure, but if I was in charge of a labour ward, I'd be wondering why double the numbers of healthy mums giving birth under my supervision were needing them, in comparison to similar mothers giving birth in out of hospital settings. Particularly if the outcomes for the babies were no better.
Alice Roberts has also steadfastly ignored one of the most interesting findings of the POB studies which is that for ALL healthy mothers (including first time mums), giving birth in free standing birth centres where intervention requires transfer to hospital by ambulance, doesn't seem to make mothers any less likely to go home with a healthy baby.
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
"No shit, sherlock.The "planned homebirth" cohort will always be lower risk by default, as higher risk women will already have been excluded from planning a homebirth. That's not surprising, and doesn't indicate that homebirth is safer, just that you were less at risk to begin with."
No - the Place of Birth study from 2011 that AR discusses in the article (like all decent research into place of birth done in the past 20 years) used only healthy, low risk mums IN ALL ARMS OF THE TRIAL.
That means that it compared the outcomes for healthy, low risk mums giving birth at home with healthy, low risk mums giving birth in obstetric settings. It made sure the groups were matched for risk factors at the start of labour.
Ok? 
"but Dr Roberts pointing this out, doesn't make her "thick".
Actually she doesn't point this out. She just points out that the c-section and epidural rates for home birth are going to be lower than for hospital because, guess what? You can't do c-sections and epidurals at home! To which the response is no of course you bloody can't, which is why the c-section and epidural rates in the homebirth arm of the POB study aren't '0%', but are a reflection of the number of women who transfer in from out of hospital settings for interventions in CLU's, and that it's these figures that make up the intervention rates for this group. Something of course she'd have worked out if she'd a) read the study b) had read any other studies on the subject of birth settings c) spent 5 minutes thinking about it and maybe discussing it with someone who knew something about obstetrics and midwifery.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
"We all know that the reasons the data are obfuscated"
Are you suggesting that there's a deliberate conspiracy to muddy the waters?
Who's involved in this conspiracy then? The NCT? The Royal College of Midwives? The Royal College of Gynaecologists?
"The NCT is a law unto itself and at this point in history - despite its achievements in the past - is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of women"
If the NCT is campaigning to improve standards of maternity care (it is), increase access to one to one midwifery care (it is), and to flag up concerns about the rising tide of interventions in birth (against a background of a stillbirth rate that hasn't fallen for 10 years) then I would say it's relevant to all women.
I don't think there is a conspiracy (at least not one which involves all those bodies ) but I think there is a passive resistance to carrying out the research which needs to be done, in order to provide the best data. As many have pointed out on this thread and the other one, the data are being obfuscated, badly collected, badly expressed, and then badly interpreted in articles such as these.
None of these people involved are particularly thick. There has to be a lack of will - political, personal, whatever - which prevents good data from being collected and well analysed, and then believed. Look what happened to Marjorie Tew. She barely rates discussion, it seems, despite having had a bloody good go at it.
I think the NCT has a major, major problem with its image, which renders it easy to discount. It does not present an honest appraisal of birth, feeding, home birth, post-natal period, birth education, hospital vs home birth: it is highly partisan and exceedingly FORCEFUL in a way that simply puts backs up. Good luck to them increasing their share of the say in the way things are run, with the current attitude the organisation displays.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.