Differences in optimality index between planned place of birth in a birth centre and alternative planned places of birth, a nationwide prospective cohort study in The Netherlands: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To compare the Optimality Index of planned birth in a birth centre with planned birth in a hospital and planned home birth for low-risk term pregnant women who start labour under the responsibility of a community midwife.Design
Prospective cohort study.Setting
Low-risk pregnant women under care of a community midwife and living in a region with one of the 21 participating Dutch birth centres or in a region with the possibility for midwife-led hospital birth. Home birth was commonly available in all regions included in the study.Participants
3455 low-risk term pregnant women (1686 nulliparous and 1769 multiparous) who gave birth between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013: 1668 planned birth centre births, 701 planned midwife-led hospital births and 1086 planned home births.Main outcome measurements
The Optimality IndexNL-2015, a tool to measure 'maximum outcome with minimal intervention', was assessed by planned place of birth being a birth centre, a hospital setting or at home. Also, a composite maternal and perinatal adverse outcome score was calculated for the different planned places of birth.Results
There were no differences in Optimality Index NL-2015 for pregnant women who planned to give birth in a birth centre compared with women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Although effect sizes were small, women who planned to give birth at home had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015 than women who planned to give birth in a birth centre. The differences were larger for multiparous than for nulliparous women.Conclusion
The Optimality Index NL-2015 for women with planned birth centre births was comparable with planned midwife-led hospital births. Women with planned home births had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015, that is, a higher sum score of evidence-based items with an optimal value than women with planned birth centre births.
SUBMITTER: Hermus MAA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701986 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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.
| S-EPMC5479044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAt present, the maternity care system in the Netherlands is being reorganized into an integrated model of care, shifting the focus of midwives to include increasing numbers of births in hospital settings and clients with medium risk profiles. In light of these changes, it is useful for midwives to have a tool which may help them in reflecting upon care practices that promote physiological childbirth practices. The Optimality Index-US is an evidence based tool, designed to measure optimal perinatal care processes and outcomes. It has been validated for use in the United States (OI-US), United Kingdom (OI-UK) and Turkey (OI-TR). The objective of this study was to adapt the OI-US for the Dutch maternity care setting (OI-NL).MethodsTranslation and back translation were applied to create the OI-NL. A panel of maternity care experts (n = 10) provided input for face validation items in the OI-NL. Assessment of inter-rater reliability and ease of use was also conducted. Following this, the OI-NL was used prospectively to collect data on 266 women who commenced intrapartum care under the responsibility of a midwife. Twice groups were compared, based on parity and on care-setting at birth. Mean scores between these groups, corrected for perinatal background factors were assessed for discriminant validity.ResultsFace validity was established for OI-NL on the basis of expert input. Discriminant validity was confirmed by conducting multiple regressions analyses for parity (β = 6.21, P = 0.00) and for care-setting (β = 12.1, p = 0.00). Inter-rater reliability was 98%, with one item (Apgar score) sensitive to scoring differences.ConclusionOI-NL is a valid and reliable tool for use in the Dutch maternity care setting. In addition to its value for assessing evidence-based maternity care processes and outcomes, there is potential for use for learning and reflection. Against the backdrop of a changing maternity care system, and due to the specificity of its items OI-NL may be of value as a tool for detecting subtle changes indicative of escalating medicalization of childbirth in the Netherlands.
| S-EPMC5902845 | biostudies-literature
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: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.
| S-EPMC6830673 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3330132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingEngland: 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.Participants64,538 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 measureA 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).ResultsThere 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%).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC3223531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The choice of birthplace may have an important impact on a woman's health. In this longitudinal study, we investigated the psychopathological risk factors that drive women's choice of birthplace, since their influence is currently not well understood. The research was conducted in 2011/12 and we analyzed data of 177 women (obstetric unit, n = 121; free standing midwifery unit, n = 42; homebirth, n = 14). We focused antepartally (M = 34.3 ± 3.3) on sociodemographic and risk factors of psychopathology, such as prenatal distress (Prenatal Distress Questionnaire), depressiveness (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), birth anxiety (Birth Anxiety Scale), childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire), and postpartally (M = 6.65 ± 2.6) on birth experience (Salmon's Item List), as well as psychological adaption, such as postpartum depressive symptoms (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale) and birth anxiety felt during birth (modified Birth Anxiety Scale). Women with fear of childbirth and the beginning of birth were likely to plan a hospital birth. In contrast, women with fear of touching and palpation by doctors and midwives, as well as women with childhood trauma, were more likely to plan an out-of-hospital birth. Furthermore, women with planned out-of-hospital births experienced a greater relief of their birth anxiety during the birth process than women with planned hospital birth. Our results especially show that women with previous mental illnesses, as well as traumatic experiences, seem to have special needs during childbirth, such as a safe environment and supportive care.
| S-EPMC8779342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The frequency of planned out-of-hospital birth in the United States has increased in recent years. The value of studies assessing the perinatal risks of planned out-of-hospital birth versus hospital birth has been limited by cases in which transfer to a hospital is required and a birth that was initially planned as an out-of-hospital birth is misclassified as a hospital birth.We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all births that occurred in Oregon during 2012 and 2013 using data from newly revised Oregon birth certificates that allowed for the disaggregation of hospital births into the categories of planned in-hospital births and planned out-of-hospital births that took place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital. We assessed perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal morbidity, and obstetrical procedures according to the planned birth setting (out of hospital vs. hospital).Planned out-of-hospital birth was associated with a higher rate of perinatal death than was planned in-hospital birth (3.9 vs. 1.8 deaths per 1000 deliveries, P=0.003; odds ratio after adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical conditions, 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 4.30; adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1000 births; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.54). The odds for neonatal seizure were higher and the odds for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit lower with planned out-of-hospital births than with planned in-hospital birth. Planned out-of-hospital birth was also strongly associated with unassisted vaginal delivery (93.8%, vs. 71.9% with planned in-hospital births; P<0.001) and with decreased odds for obstetrical procedures.Perinatal mortality was higher with planned out-of-hospital birth than with planned in-hospital birth, but the absolute risk of death was low in both settings. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.).
| S-EPMC4791097 | biostudies-literature
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