Dataset Information

Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units.

Participants

64,538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and "booked" pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded.

Main outcome measure

A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units).

Results

There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%).

Conclusions

The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Birthplace in England Collaborative Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3223531 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the relationship between maternal age and intrapartum outcomes in 'low-risk' women; and to evaluate whether the relationship between maternal age and intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes differs by planned place of birth.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingObstetric units (OUs), midwifery units and planned home births in England.Participants63 371 women aged over 16 without known medical or obstetric risk factors, with singleton pregnancies, planning vaginal birth.MethodsLog Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between maternal age, modelled as a continuous and categorical variable, and risk of intrapartum interventions and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.Main outcome measuresIntrapartum caesarean section, instrumental delivery, syntocinon augmentation and a composite measure of maternal interventions/adverse outcomes requiring obstetric care encompassing augmentation, instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section, general anaesthesia, blood transfusion, third-degree/fourth-degree tear, maternal admission; adverse perinatal outcome (encompassing neonatal unit admission or perinatal death).ResultsInterventions and adverse maternal outcomes requiring obstetric care generally increased with age, particularly in nulliparous women. For nulliparous women aged 16-40, the risk of experiencing an intervention or adverse outcome requiring obstetric care increased more steeply with age in planned non-OU births than in planned OU births (adjusted RR 1.21 per 5-year increase in age, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.25 vs adjusted RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.15) but absolute risks were lower in planned non-OU births at all ages. The risk of neonatal unit admission or perinatal death was significantly raised in nulliparous women aged 40+ relative to women aged 25-29 (adjusted RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.09).ConclusionsAt all ages, 'low-risk' women who plan birth in a non-OU setting tend to experience lower intervention rates than comparable women who plan birth in an OU. Younger nulliparous women appear to benefit more from this reduction than older nulliparous women.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare perinatal and maternal outcomes for Australian women with uncomplicated pregnancies according to planned place of birth, that is, in hospital labour wards, birth centres or at home.DesignA population-based retrospective design, linking and analysing routinely collected electronic data. Analysis comprised ?2 tests and binary logistic regression for categorical data, yielding adjusted ORs. Continuous data were analysed using analysis of variance.SettingAll eight Australian states and territories.ParticipantsWomen with uncomplicated pregnancies who gave birth between 2000 and 2012 to a singleton baby in cephalic presentation at between 37 and 41 completed weeks' gestation. Of the 1 251 420 births, 1 171 703 (93.6%) were planned in hospital labour wards, 71 505 (5.7%) in birth centres and 8212 (0.7%) at home.Main outcome measuresMode of birth, normal labour and birth, interventions and procedures during labour and birth, maternal complications, admission to special care/high dependency or intensive care units (mother or infant) and perinatal mortality (intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal death).ResultsCompared with planned hospital births, the odds of normal labour and birth were over twice as high in planned birth centre births (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.72; 99%?CI 2.63 to 2.81) and nearly six times as high in planned home births (AOR 5.91; 99%?CI 5.15 to 6.78). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of intrapartum stillbirths, early or late neonatal deaths between the three planned places of birth.ConclusionsThis is the first Australia-wide study to examine outcomes by planned place of birth. For healthy women in Australia having an uncomplicated pregnancy, planned births in birth centres or at home are associated with positive maternal outcomes although the number of homebirths was small overall. There were no significant differences in the perinatal mortality rate, although the absolute numbers of deaths were very small and therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn about perinatal mortality outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth.DesignEconomic evaluation with individual level data from the Birthplace national prospective cohort study.Setting142 of 147 trusts providing home birth services, 53 of 56 freestanding midwifery units, 43 of 51 alongside midwifery units, and a random sample of 36 of 180 obstetric units, stratified by unit size and geographical region, in England, over varying periods of time within the study period 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010.Participants64,538 women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour.InterventionsPlanned birth in four alternative settings: at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units.Main outcome measuresIncremental cost per adverse perinatal outcome avoided, adverse maternal morbidity avoided, and additional normal birth. The non-parametric bootstrap method was used to generate net monetary benefits and construct cost effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative thresholds for cost effectiveness.ResultsThe total unadjusted mean costs were £1066, £1435, £1461, and £1631 for births planned at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units, respectively (equivalent to about €1274, $1701; €1715, $2290; €1747, $2332; and €1950, $2603). Overall, and for multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness when perinatal outcomes were considered. There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a cost effectiveness threshold of £20 000 declining to 0.63. With regards to maternal outcomes in nulliparous and multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness.ConclusionsFor multiparous women at low risk of complications, planned birth at home was the most cost effective option. For nulliparous low risk women, planned birth at home is still likely to be the most cost effective option but is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare outcomes at 3 months post partum for women randomised to give birth by planned caesarean section (CS) or by planned vaginal birth (VB) in the Twin Birth Study (TBS).DesignWe invited women in the TBS to complete a 3-month follow-up questionnaire.SettingTwo thousand and eight hundred and four women from 25 countries.PopulationTwo thousand and five hundred and seventy women (92% response rate).MethodsWomen randomised between 13 December 2003 and 4 April 2011 in the TBS completed a questionnaire and outcomes were compared using an intention-to-treat approach.Main outcome and measuresBreastfeeding, quality of life, depression, fatigue and urinary incontinence.ResultsWe found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. In the planned CS versus planned VB groups, breastfeeding at any time after birth was reported by 84.4% versus 86.4% (P = 0.13); the mean physical and mental Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life scores were 51.8 versus 51.6 (P = 0.65) and 46.7 versus 46.0 (P = 0.09), respectively; the mean Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue score was 20.3 versus 20.8 (P = 0.14); the frequency of probable depression on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was 14.0% versus 14.8% (P = 0.57); the rate of problematic urinary incontinence was 5.5% versus 6.4% (P = 0.31); and the mean Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 score was 20.5 versus 20.4 (P = 0.99). Partner relationships, including painful intercourse, were similar between the groups.ConclusionFor women with twin pregnancies randomised to planned CS compared with planned VB, outcomes at 3 months post partum did not differ. The mode of birth was not associated with problematic urinary incontinence or urinary incontinence that affected the quality of life. Contrary to previous studies, breastfeeding at 3 months was not increased with planned VB.Tweetable abstractPlanned mode of birth for twins doesn't affect maternal depression, wellbeing, incontinence or breastfeeding.