Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Olsen O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4238062 | biostudies-other | 2012 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
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: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: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:There is concern about the safety of homebirths, especially in women transferred to hospital during or after labour. The scope of transfer in planned home births has not been assessed in a systematic review. This review aimed to describe the proportions and indications for transfer from home to hospital during or after labour in planned home births.The databases Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Svemed+, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the MeSH term "home childbirth". Inclusion criteria were as follows: the study population was women who chose planned home birth at the onset of labour; the studies were from Western countries; the birth attendant was an authorised midwife or medical doctor; the studies were published in 1985 or later, with data not older than from 1980; and data on transfer from home to hospital were described. Of the 3366 titles identified, 83 full text articles were screened, and 15 met the inclusion criteria. Two of the authors independently extracted the data. Because of the heterogeneity and lack of robustness across the studies, there were considerable risks for bias if performing meta-analyses. A descriptive presentation of the findings was chosen.Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion, containing data from 215,257 women. The total proportion of transfer from home to hospital varied from 9.9% to 31.9% across the studies. The most common indication for transfer was labour dystocia, occurring in 5.1% to 9.8% of all women planning for home births. Transfer for indication for foetal distress varied from 1.0% to 3.6%, postpartum haemorrhage from 0% to 0.2% and respiratory problems in the infant from 0.3% to 1.4%. The proportion of emergency transfers varied from 0% to 5.4%.Future studies should report indications for transfer from home to hospital and provide clear definitions of emergency transfers.
| S-EPMC4069085 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe Term Breech Trial compared the safety of planned cesarean and planned vaginal birth for breech presentations at term. The combined outcome of perinatal or neonatal death and serious neonatal morbidity was found to be significantly lower among babies delivered by planned cesarean section. In this study we conducted a cost analysis of the 2 approaches to breech presentations at delivery.MethodsWe used a third-party-payer (i.e., Ministry of Health) perspective. We included all costs for physician services and all hospital-related costs incurred by both the mother and the infant. We collected health care utilization and outcomes for all study participants during the trial. We used only the utilization data from countries with low national rates of perinatal death (< or = 20/1000). Seven hospitals across Canada (4 teaching and 3 community centres) were selected for unit cost calculations.ResultsThe estimated mean cost of a planned cesarean was significantly lower than that of a planned vaginal birth (7165 dollars v. 8042 dollars per mother and infant; mean difference -877 dollars, 95% credible interval -1286 dollars to -473 dollars). The estimated mean cost of a planned cesarean was lower than that of a planned vaginal birth for both women having a first birth (7255 dollars v. 8440 dollars) and women having had at least one prior birth (7071 dollars v. 7559 dollars). Although the treatment effect was largest in the subgroup of women having their first child, there was no statistically significant interaction between treatment and parity since the 95% credible intervals for difference in treatment effects between parity equalling zero and parity of one or greater all include zero.InterpretationPlanned cesarean section was found to be less costly than planned vaginal birth for the singleton fetus in a breech presentation at term in the Term Breech Trial.
| S-EPMC1421479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous studies have shown that planned home birth in low-risk pregnancies is a generally safe option. However nowadays, only 0.5 percent of deliveries have been at home in Spain. This study sought to understand the characteristics of planned home births with qualified healthcare professionals in low-risk pregnancies and their results on maternal and neonatal health in the Balearic Islands. The study followed a retrospective descriptive design to investigate planned home births from 1989 to 2019 (n = 820). Sociodemographic data of women, healthcare professional intervention rates, and maternal/fetal morbidity/mortality results were collected. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using the IBM SPSS Version 25 software package. The results indicated that women with low-risk pregnancies who planned home births with a qualified midwife had a higher probability of spontaneous vaginal birth delivery and positive maternal health results. Furthermore, the risk of hospital transfer was low (10.7%) and the rate of prolonged breastfeeding (>1 year) was extremely high (99%). Moreover, the study showed that planned home births can be generally associated with fetal well-being. The conclusions and implications of this study are that planned home births in low-risk pregnancies attended by qualified midwives in the Balearic Islands achieve positive results in both maternal and newborn health, as well as low rates of obstetric intervention.
| S-EPMC8038591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the last decade, planned home births in the United States (US) have increased, and have been associated with increased neonatal mortality and other morbidities. In a previous study we reported that neonatal mortality is increased in planned home births but we did not perform an analysis for the presence of professional certification status.The objective of this study therefore was to undertake an analysis to determine whether the professional certification status of midwives or the home birth setting are more closely associated with the increased neonatal mortality of planned midwife-attended home births in the United States.This study is a secondary analysis of our prior study. The 2006-2009 period linked birth/infant deaths data set was analyzed to examine total neonatal deaths (deaths less than 28 days of life) in term singleton births (37+ weeks and newborn weight ≥ 2,500 grams) without documented congenital malformations by certification status of the midwife: certified nurse midwives (CNM), nurse midwives certified by the American Midwifery Certification Board, and "other" or uncertified midwives who are not certified by the American Midwifery Certification Board.Neonatal mortality rates in hospital births attended by certified midwives were significantly lower (3.2/10,000, RR 0.33 95% CI 0.21-0.53) than home births attended by certified midwives (NNM: 10.0/10,000; RR 1) and uncertified midwives (13.7/10,000; RR 1.41 [95% CI, 0.83-2.38]). The difference in neonatal mortality between certified and uncertified midwives at home births did not reach statistical levels (10.0/10,000 births versus 13.7/10,000 births p = 0.2).This study confirms that when compared to midwife-attended hospital births, neonatal mortality rates at home births are significantly increased. While NNM was increased in planned homebirths attended by uncertified midwives when compared to certified midwives, this difference was not statistically significant. Neonatal mortality rates at home births were not significantly different in relationship to professional certification status of the birth attendant, whether the delivery was by a certified or an uncertified birth attendant.
| S-EPMC4871473 | biostudies-other
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:IntroductionThough interest is growing for trials comparing planned delivery mode (vaginal delivery [VD]; cesarean section [CS]) in low-risk nulliparous women, appropriate study design is unclear. Our objective was to assess feasibility of three designs (preference trial [PCT], randomized controlled trial [RCT], partially randomized patient preference trial [PRPPT]) for a trial comparing planned delivery mode in low-risk women.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of low-risk, nulliparous pregnant women (N = 416) and healthcare providers (N = 168) providing prenatal care and/or labor/delivery services was conducted in Argentina (2 public, 2 private hospitals). Proportion of pregnant women and providers willing to participate in each design and reasons for not participating were determined.ResultsFew women (< 15%) or professionals (33.3%) would participate in an RCT, though more would participate in PCTs (88% women; 65.9% professionals) or PRPPTs (44.4% public, 63.4% private sector women; 44.0% professionals). However, most women would choose vaginal delivery in the PCT and PRPPT (> 85%). Believing randomization unacceptable (RCT, PRPPT) and desiring choice of delivery mode (RCT) were women's reasons for not participating. For providers, commonly cited reasons for not participating included unacceptability of performing CS without medical indication, difficulty obtaining informed consent, discomfort enrolling patients (all designs), and violating women's right to choose (RCT).Conclusions for practiceImportant limitations were found for each trial design evaluated. The necessity of stronger evidence regarding delivery mode in low-risk women suggests consideration of additional designs, such as a rigorously designed cohort study or an RCT within an obstetric population with equivocal CS indications.
| S-EPMC7922524 | 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