Planned Out-of-Hospital Birth and Birth Outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Snowden JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4791097 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998.To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials.Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives.The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn.There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new randomised controlled trials.
| S-EPMC4238062 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians. METHODS: We included all planned home births attended by registered midwives from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2004, in British Columbia, Canada (n = 2889), and all planned hospital births meeting the eligibility requirements for home birth that were attended by the same cohort of midwives (n = 4752). We also included a matched sample of physician-attended planned hospital births (n = 5331). The primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality; secondary outcomes were obstetric interventions and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: The rate of perinatal death per 1000 births was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-1.03) in the group of planned home births; the rate in the group of planned hospital births was 0.57 (95% CI 0.00-1.43) among women attended by a midwife and 0.64 (95% CI 0.00-1.56) among those attended by a physician. Women in the planned home-birth group were significantly less likely than those who planned a midwife-attended hospital birth to have obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.29-0.36; assisted vaginal delivery, RR 0.41, 95% 0.33-0.52) or adverse maternal outcomes (e.g., third- or fourth-degree perineal tear, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.59; postpartum hemorrhage, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.77). The findings were similar in the comparison with physician-assisted hospital births. Newborns in the home-birth group were less likely than those in the midwife-attended hospital-birth group to require resuscitation at birth (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.37) or oxygen therapy beyond 24 hours (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24-0.59). The findings were similar in the comparison with newborns in the physician-assisted hospital births; in addition, newborns in the home-birth group were less likely to have meconium aspiration (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.93) and more likely to be admitted to hospital or readmitted if born in hospital (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.85). INTERPRETATION: Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.
| S-EPMC2742137 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5014197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of a planned birth in a birth centre compared with alternative planned places of birth for low-risk women. In addition, a distinction has been made between different types of locations and integration profiles of birth centres.DesignEconomic evaluation based on a prospective cohort study.Setting21 Dutch birth centres, 46 hospital locations where midwife-led birth was possible and 110 midwifery practices where home birth was possible.Participants3455 low-risk women under the care of a community midwife at the start of labour in the Netherlands within the study period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013.Main outcome measuresCosts and health outcomes of birth for different planned places of birth. Healthcare costs were measured from start of labour until 7 days after birth. The health outcomes were assessed by the Optimality Index-NL2015 (OI) and a composite adverse outcomes score.ResultsThe total adjusted mean costs for births planned in a birth centre, in a hospital and at home under the care of a community midwife were €3327, €3330 and €2998, respectively. There was no difference between the score on the OI for women who planned to give birth in a birth centre and that of women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Women who planned to give birth at home had better outcomes on the OI (higher score on the OI).ConclusionsWe found no differences in costs and health outcomes for low-risk women under the care of a community midwife with a planned birth in a birth centre and in a hospital. For nulliparous and multiparous low-risk women, planned birth at home was the most cost-effective option compared with planned birth in a birth centre.
| S-EPMC5595203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Home birth is available to women in Canada who meet eligibility requirements for low risk status after assessment by regulated midwives. While UK researchers have reported lower costs associated with planned home birth, there have been no published studies of the costs of home versus hospital birth in Canada.Costs for all women planning home birth with a regulated midwife in British Columbia, Canada were compared with those of all women who met eligibility requirements for home birth and were planning to deliver in hospital with a registered midwife, and with a sample of women of similar low risk status planning birth in the hospital with a physician. We calculated costs of physician service billings, midwifery fees, hospital in-patient costs, pharmaceuticals, home birth supplies, and transport. We compared costs among study groups using the Kruskall Wallis test for independent groups.In the first 28 days postpartum, we report a $2,338 average savings per birth among women planning home birth compared to hospital birth with a midwife and $2,541 compared to hospital birth planned with a physician. In longer term outcomes, similar reductions were observed, with cost savings per birth at $1,683 compared to the planned hospital birth with a midwife, and $1,100 compared to the physician group during the first eight weeks postpartum. During the first year of life, costs for infants of mothers planning home birth were reduced overall. Cost savings compared to planned hospital births with a midwife were $810 and with a physician $1,146. Costs were similarly reduced when findings were stratified by parity.Planned home birth in British Columbia with a registered midwife compared to planned hospital birth is less expensive for our health care system up to 8 weeks postpartum and to one year of age for the infant.
| S-EPMC4505882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectivePrevious studies suggest improved patient outcomes for providers who perform high volumes of complex medical procedures. Out-of-hospital tracheal intubation is a difficult procedure. We seek to determine the association between rescuer procedural experience and patient survival after out-of-hospital tracheal intubation.MethodsWe analyzed probabilistically linked Pennsylvania statewide emergency medicine services, hospital discharge, and death data of patients receiving out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. We defined tracheal intubation experience as cumulative tracheal intubation during 2000 to 2005; low=1 to 10 tracheal intubations, medium=11 to 25 tracheal intubations, high=26 to 50 tracheal intubations, and very high=greater than 50 tracheal intubations. We identified survival on hospital discharge of patients intubated during 2003 to 2005. Using generalized estimating equations, we evaluated the association between patient survival and out-of-hospital rescuer cumulative tracheal intubation experience, adjusted for clinical covariates.ResultsDuring 2003 to 2005, 4,846 rescuers performed tracheal intubation. These individuals performed tracheal intubation on 33,117 patients during 2003 to 2005 and 62,586 patients during 2000 to 2005. Among 21,753 cardiac arrests, adjusted odds of survival was higher for patients intubated by rescuers with very high tracheal intubation experience; adjusted odds ratio (OR) versus low tracheal intubation experience: very high 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15 to 1.89), high 1.13 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.31), and medium 1.02 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.15). Among 8,162 medical nonarrests, adjusted odds of survival were higher for patients intubated by rescuers with high and very high tracheal intubation experience; adjusted OR versus low tracheal intubation experience: very high 1.55 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.22), high 1.29 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.59), and medium 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38). Among 3,202 trauma nonarrests, survival was not associated with rescuer tracheal intubation experience; adjusted OR versus low tracheal intubation experience: very high 1.84 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.81), high 1.25 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.85), and medium 0.92 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.26).ConclusionRescuer procedural experience is associated with improved patient survival after out-of-hospital tracheal intubation of cardiac arrest and medical nonarrest patients. Rescuer procedural experience is not associated with patient survival after out-of-hospital tracheal intubation of trauma nonarrest patients.
| S-EPMC3071147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHow the application of evidence to planned birth practices, induction of labour (IOL) and prelabour caesarean (CS), differs between Australian maternity units remains poorly understood. Perceptions of readiness for practice change and resources to implement change in individual units are also unclear.AimTo identify inter-hospital and inter-professional variations in relation to current planned birth practices and readiness for change, reported by clinicians in 7 maternity units.MethodCustom-created survey of maternity staff at 7 Sydney hospitals, with questions about women's engagement with decision making, indications for planned birth, timing of birth and readiness for change. Responses from midwives and medical staff, and from each hospital, were compared.FindingsOf 245 completed surveys (27% response rate), 78% were midwives and 22% medical staff. Substantial inter-hospital variation was noted for stated planned birth indication, timing, women's involvement in decision-making practices, as well as in staff perceptions of their unit's readiness for change. Overall, 48% (range 31-64%) and 64% (range 39-89%) agreed on a need to change their unit's caesarean and induction practices respectively. The three units where greatest need for change was perceived also had least readiness for change in terms of leadership, culture, and resources. Regarding inter-disciplinary variation, medical staff were more likely than midwifery staff to believe women were appropriately informed and less likely to believe unit practice change was required.ConclusionPlanned birth practices and change readiness varied between participating hospitals and professional groups. Hospitals with greatest perceived need for change perceived least resources to implement such change.
| S-EPMC8135152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The unpredictable nature of childbirth infrequently results in unplanned out-of-hospital birth, in a pre-hospital setting. We evaluated the perinatal and long-term outcome of children accidentally born out-of-hospital. This was a population-based analysis of singleton deliveries occurring at a single tertiary hospital. The maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcome of unplanned out-of-hospital births were compared with in-hospital attended deliveries. Long-term cumulative incidence of hospitalizations (up to 18 years) involving respiratory, neurological, endocrine or infectious morbidity were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression models were used to control for confounders. In total, 243,682 deliveries were included, and 1.5% (n = 3580) were unplanned out-of-hospital births. Most occurred in multiparous women, and about a quarter of these women had inadequate prenatal care. Perinatal mortality rate was significantly higher for out-of-hospital births as compared with in-hospital births (OR = 2.9; 95% CI 2.2-3.8, p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated a significantly lower cumulative incidence of hospitalizations of children born out-of-hospital and the Cox models showed that hospitalization rates involving any of the above morbidities were significantly lower in children born out-of-hospital. While perinatal mortality was higher in unplanned out-of-hospital births, offspring born out-of-hospital showed a lower incidence of hospitalizations involving a variety of morbidities, possibly owing to under-utilization of healthcare services in this population.
| S-EPMC7073687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examined 12-month neurobehavioral outcomes in children who survived out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OH-CA), were comatose after resuscitation, and were enrolled in a clinical trial to evaluate targeted temperature management to hypothermia (33.0°C) or normothermia (36.8°C) (Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest, Out-of-Hopsital [THAPCA-OH]; NCT00878644).MethodsBaseline functioning was assessed by caregiver responses on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Second Edition (VABS-II) soon after OH-CA (based on functioning before OH-CA); children with broadly normal baseline functioning (VABS-II ≥70) were included in the THAPCA-OH primary outcome. VABS-II was completed again 12 months later. Then, face-to-face cognitive evaluations were completed. Analyses evaluated changes in VABS-II composite, domain, and subdomain scores and cognitive functioning at follow-up.ResultsNinety-six of 295 enrolled children were alive at 12 months; 87 of 96 had broadly normal baseline functioning (VABS-II ≥70). Follow-up was obtained on 85/87. Forty-two of 85 had VABS-II ≥70 at 12 months. VABS-II composite, domain, and subdomain scores declined significantly between baseline and 12-month follow-up (P < .001). Declines were greatest in older children. Most children displayed well below average cognitive functioning. Older age at cardiac arrest and higher baseline VABS-II scores were predictive of greater decline in neurobehavioral function. Treatment with hypothermia did not influence neurobehavioral outcomes.ConclusionsThis is the largest study exploring long-term neurobehavioral outcomes in children surviving OH-CA who were comatose after resuscitation. Results revealed significant neurobehavioral morbidity across multiple functional domains, based both on caregiver reports and performance on objective cognitive measures, in survivors 1 year later.
| S-EPMC5051148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is convincing evidence that birth in hospitals with high birth volumes increases the chance of healthy survival in high-risk infants. However, it is unclear whether this is true also for low risk infants. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze effects of hospital's birth volume on mortality, mode of delivery, readmissions, complications and subsequent developmental delays in all births or predefined low risk birth cohorts. The search strategy included EMBASE and Medline supplemented by citing and cited literature of included studies and expert panel highlighting additional literature, published between January/2000 and February/2020. We included studies which were published in English or German language reporting effects of birth volumes on mortality in term or all births in countries with neonatal mortality < 5/1000. We undertook a double-independent title-abstract- and full-text screening and extraction of study characteristics, critical appraisal and outcomes in a qualitative evidence synthesis.Results13 retrospective studies with mostly acceptable quality were included. Heterogeneous volume-thresholds, risk adjustments, outcomes and populations hindered a meta-analysis. Qualitatively, four of six studies reported significantly higher perinatal mortality in lower birth volume hospitals. Volume-outcome effects on neonatal mortality (n = 7), stillbirths (n = 3), maternal mortality (n = 1), caesarean sections (n = 2), maternal (n = 1) and neonatal complications (n = 1) were inconclusive.ConclusionAnalyzed studies indicate higher rates of perinatal mortality for low risk birth in hospitals with low birth volumes. Due to heterogeneity of studies, data synthesis was complicated and a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore international core outcome sets should be defined and implemented in perinatal registries.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018095289.
| S-EPMC8314545 | biostudies-literature