Planned Place of Birth-Impact of Psychopathological Risk Factors on the Choice of Birthplace and Its Postpartum Effect on Psychological Adaption: An Exploratory Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Winter C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8779342 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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.
| S-EPMC3902355 | 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:While the place of birth plays a crucial role for women's birth experiences, the interest in out-of-hospital births has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. Related to this, various international policies recommend enabling women to choose where to give birth. We aimed to analyze Swiss women's choice between birth hospitals and birth centers. Employing spatial accessibility analysis, we incorporated four data types: highly disaggregated population data, administrative data, street network data, addresses of birth hospitals and birth centers. 99.8% of Swiss women of childbearing age were included in the analysis (N = 1.896.669). We modelled car travel times from a woman's residence to the nearest birth hospital and birth center. If both birth settings were available within 30 minutes, a woman was considered to have a true choice. Only 58.2% of women had a true choice. This proportion varied considerably across Swiss federal states. The main barrier to a true choice was limited accessibility of birth centers. Median travel time to birth hospitals was 9.8 (M = 12.5), to birth centers 23.9 minutes (M = 28.5). Swiss women are insufficiently empowered to exercise their reproductive autonomy as their choice of place of birth is significantly limited by geographical constraints. It is an ethical and medical imperative to provide women with a true choice. We provide high-resolution insights into the accessibility of birth settings and strong arguments to (re-)examine the need for further birth centers (and birth hospitals) in specific geographical areas. Policy-makers are obligated to improve the accessibility of birth centers to advance women's autonomy and enhance maternal health outcomes after childbirth. The Covid-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to shift policy.
| S-EPMC9258807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingLow-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.Participants3455 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 measurementsThe 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC5701986 | biostudies-literature
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 χ2 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: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
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