Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of planned birth in a birth centre compared with alternative planned places of birth: results of the Dutch Birth Centre study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To 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.

Design

Economic evaluation based on a prospective cohort study.

Setting

21 Dutch birth centres, 46 hospital locations where midwife-led birth was possible and 110 midwifery practices where home birth was possible.

Participants

3455 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 measures

Costs 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.

Results

The 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).

Conclusions

We 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.

SUBMITTER: Hitzert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5595203 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of planned birth in a birth centre compared with alternative planned places of birth: results of the Dutch Birth Centre study.

Hitzert Marit M Hermus Marieke Maa MM Boesveld Inge Ic II Franx Arie A van der Pal-de Bruin Karin Km KK Steegers Eric Eap EE van den Akker-van Marle EIske Me EM

BMJ open 20170911 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>Economic evaluation based on a prospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>21 Dutch birth centres, 46 hospital locations where midwife-led birth was possible and 110 midwifery practices where home birth was ...[more]

PMID: 28893750

Similar Datasets

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:Aim Although cardiac rehabilitation improves physical fitness after a cardiac event, many eligible patients do not participate in cardiac rehabilitation and the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation are often not maintained over time. Home-based training with telemonitoring guidance could improve participation rates and enhance long-term effectiveness. Methods and results We randomised 90 low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation to three months of either home-based training with telemonitoring guidance or centre-based training. Although training adherence was similar between groups, satisfaction was higher in the home-based group ( p?=?0.02). Physical fitness improved at discharge ( p?<?0.01) and at one-year follow-up ( p?<?0.01) in both groups, without differences between groups (home-based p?=?0.31 and centre-based p?=?0.87). Physical activity levels did not change during the one-year study period (centre-based p?=?0.38, home-based p?=?0.80). Healthcare costs were statistically non-significantly lower in the home-based group (€437 per patient, 95% confidence interval -562 to 1436, p?=?0.39). From a societal perspective, a statistically non-significant difference of €3160 per patient in favour of the home-based group was found (95% confidence interval -460 to 6780, p?=?0.09) and the probability that it was more cost-effective varied between 97% and 75% (willingness-to-pay of €0 and €100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years, respectively). Conclusion We found no differences between home-based training with telemonitoring guidance and centre-based training on physical fitness, physical activity level or health-related quality of life. However, home-based training was associated with a higher patient satisfaction and appears to be more cost-effective than centre-based training. We conclude that home-based training with telemonitoring guidance can be used as an alternative to centre-based training for low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.

Project description:The goal of integrated care is to offer a continuum of care that crosses the boundaries of public health, primary, secondary, and tertiary care. Integrated care is increasingly promoted for people with complex needs and has also recently been promoted in maternity care systems to improve the quality of care. Especially when located near an obstetric unit, birth centres are considered to be ideal settings for the realization of integrated care. At present, however, we know very little about the degree of integration in these centres and we do not know if increased levels of integration improve the quality of the care delivered. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to evaluate birth centres and their contribution to the Dutch maternity care system. The aim of this particular sub-study is to classify birth centres in clusters with similar characteristics based on integration profiles, to support the evaluation of birth centre care.This study is based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. We used a survey followed by qualitative interviews in 23 birth centres in the Netherlands to determine which integration profiles can be distinguished and to describe their discriminating characteristics. Cluster analysis was used to classify the birth centres.Birth centres were classified into three clusters: 1)"Mono-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 10): which are mainly owned by primary care organizations and established as physical facilities to provide an alternative birthplace for low risk births; 2) "Multi-disciplinary-oriented birth centres" (n = 6): which are mainly multi-disciplinary oriented and can be regarded as facilities to give birth, with a focus on integrated birth care; 3) "Mixed Cluster of birth centres" (n = 7): which have a range of organizational forms that differentiate them from centres in the other clusters.We identified a recognizable classification, with similar characteristics between birth centres in the clusters. The results of this study can be used to relate integration profiles of birth centres to quality of care, costs, and perinatal outcomes. This assessment makes it possible to develop recommendations with regard to the type and degree of integration of Dutch birth centres in the future.

Project description:BackgroundProvision of in-centre nocturnal hemodialysis (ICNHD; 6-8 hours thrice weekly) is associated with health benefits, but the economic implications of providing this treatment are unclear.ObjectiveWe conducted a health care costing study comparing ICNHD to in-centre thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis (CvHD).DesignMicro-costing of both ICNHD and CvHD as practiced at our centre.SettingHemodialysis unit at a tertiary-care hospital in Edmonton.ParticipantsAn informal survey of 2 other Canadian ICNHD programs was conducted to inform practices that may deviate from ours to guide sensitivity analysis.MeasurementsResources consumed for each strategy were determined, and the cost of each unit (CAN $2012) was used to calculate incremental costs of ICNHD and CvHD.MethodsWe focused on resources that differ between strategies (staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities). The reference case considered 1:3 staff to patient ratio; alternate scenarios explored nursing pay grade and ratio, full care vs. self-care dialysis (including training costs), and medication costs.ResultsIn the reference case, ICNHD was $61 more costly per dialysis treatment compared with CvHD ($9,538 per patient per year). Incremental annual costs for staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities were $8,201, $1,193, and $144, respectively. If ICNHD reduces medication use (anti-hypertensives, bone mineral metabolism medications), the incremental cost of ICNHD decreases to $8,620 per patient per year. In a scenario of self-care ICNHD utilizing a staff-to-patient ratio of 1:10, ICNHD is more costly in year 1 ($15,196), but results in cost savings of $2,625 in subsequent years compared with CvHD.LimitationsThe findings of this cost analysis may not be generalizable to other health care systems, including other parts of Canada.ConclusionsCompared to CvHD, provision of ICNHD is more expensive, largely driven by increased staffing costs as patients dialyze longer. Alternate staffing models, including self-care ICNHD with minimal staff, may lead to net cost savings. The incremental cost of treatment should be considered in the context of impact on patient health outcomes, staffing model, and pragmatic factors, such as current capacity for daytime CvHD and the capital costs of new dialysis stations.

Project description:ImportanceTraumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was conducted using data from the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE), a retrospective, multicenter cohort study at 19 centers in the United States and Asia that enrolled participants from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Model variables were based on the FRANCHISE database, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and published literature. A total of 257 participants with unilateral traumatic finger amputations treated with revision amputation or replantation distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint and at least 1 year of follow-up after treatment were included in the analysis.ExposuresRevision amputation or replantation of traumatic finger amputations.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs (in US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf the 257 study participants (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.9] years; 221 [86.0%] male), 178 underwent finger replantation and 79 underwent revision amputation. In a base case of a 46.7-year-old patient, replantation was associated with QALY gains of 0.30 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 1.38) for single-finger (not thumb), 0.39 (95% CrI, -1.00 to 1.90) for thumb, 1.69 (95% CrI, -0.13 to 3.76) for multifinger excluding thumb, and 1.27 (95% CrI, -2.21 to 5.04) for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Corresponding ICERs for replantation compared with revision amputation were $99 157 per QALY for single-finger (not thumb), $66 278 per QALY for thumb, $18 388 per QALY for multifinger excluding thumb, and $21 528 per QALY for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Sensitivity analysis revealed that age at time of injury, life expectancy, postinjury utility, wages, and time off work for recovery had the strongest associations with cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the following chances of replantation being cost-effective: 47% in single-finger (not thumb), 52% in thumb, 78% in multifinger excluding thumb, and 64% in multifinger including thumb injury patterns.Conclusions and relevanceWith proper patient selection, replantation of all finger amputation patterns, whether single-finger or multifinger injuries, may be cost-effective compared with revision amputation. Multifinger replantations had a higher probability of being cost-effective than single-finger replantations. Cost-effectiveness may depend on injury pattern and patient factors and thus appears to be important for consideration when patients and surgeons are deciding whether to replant or amputate.

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.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of planned birth in a birth centre compared with alternative planned places of birth: results of the Dutch Birth Centre study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of planned birth in a birth centre compared with alternative planned places of birth: results of the Dutch Birth Centre study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure