Not regret exactly, but am aware that it might have been better to have been in hospital in some ways, although worse in others.
I had a very slow first labour (28+ hours established labour, 3 hours pushing) which meant I was absolutely exhausted by the time it came to pushing (despite having done everything to conserve my strength that you can do at home, like eat!). I had to have an episiotomy basically because I was too tired to push that extra little bit to get his head out. That healed really badly and gave me pain for about 9 months until I had treatment. Also meant I couldn't have sex in that time... It also really weakened my pelvic floor and I still (2 yrs later) have stress incontinence and get a dragging achey pain when I get tired, despite being quite good at doing my PF exercises.
If I'd been in hospital I doubt I'd have been 'allowed' to labour that long, and while it was absolutely what I wanted to do at the time, and why I fought the constant suggestions that I should go into hospital(did in the end), with hindsight I might not have had such bad longterm effects if I'd had a drip and a quicker labour.
But you just don't know what would have happened - if I had had a drip I might have not been able to cope with the pain, had an epidural, lost ability to push, c-section, subsequent difficulty breastfeeding (which was hard enough anyway) the whole casade of interventions and possible problems. And I might have had a badly healing episiotomy anyway. Pelvic floor stuff I think would have been better if had had quicker labour.
Am still planning homebirth for this next baby, but that's because second labours are usually quicker (and if it shows any signs of being v slow I will demand to go into hospital and be given a drip!)