Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors evaluated methodological quality. Two review authors checked data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 16,242 women. Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.90), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), and instrumental birth (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.83, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.80), and a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (hours) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02).Women who were randomised to receive midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience preterm birth (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94) and fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99), although there were no differences in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.51) or in overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in the midwifery-led continuity care model. Similarly there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most women should be offered midwife-led continuity models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option although caution should be exercised in applying this advice to women with substantial medical or obstetric complications.

Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that low risk women at the onset of labour with planned home birth have a higher rate of severe acute maternal morbidity than women with planned hospital birth, and to compare the rate of postpartum haemorrhage and manual removal of placenta.

DESIGN

Cohort study using a linked dataset.

SETTING

Information on all cases of severe acute maternal morbidity in the Netherlands collected by the national study into ethnic determinants of maternal morbidity in the netherlands (LEMMoN study), 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006, merged with data from the Netherlands perinatal register of all births occurring during the same period.

PARTICIPANTS

146 752 low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Severe acute maternal morbidity (admission to an intensive care unit, eclampsia, blood transfusion of four or more packed cells, and other serious events), postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta.

RESULTS

Overall, 92 333 (62.9%) women had a planned home birth and 54 419 (37.1%) a planned hospital birth. The rate of severe acute maternal morbidity among planned primary care births was 2.0 per 1000 births. For nulliparous women the rate for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 2.3 versus 3.1 per 1000 births (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06), relative risk reduction 25.7% (95% confidence interval -0.1% to 53.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 43.1 versus 43.3 (0.92, 0.85 to 1.00 and 0.5%, -6.8% to 7.9%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 29.0 versus 29.8 (0.91, 0.83 to 1.00 and 2.8%, -6.1% to 11.8%). For parous women the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity for planned home versus planned hospital birth was 1.0 versus 2.3 per 1000 births (0.43, 0.29 to 0.63 and 58.3%, 33.2% to 87.5%), the rate of postpartum haemorrhage was 19.6 versus 37.6 (0.50, 0.46 to 0.55 and 47.9%, 41.2% to 54.7%), and the rate of manual removal of placenta was 8.5 versus 19.6 (0.41, 0.36 to 0.47 and 56.9%, 47.9% to 66.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.

Maternal Health and Care in India: Why a Major Public Health Strategy Is Essential

India has large inequalities in maternal health and high maternal mortality and morbidity rates. A social model of maternal health was used as a framework for a broad review of online published literature to appraise the approaches used by India to address these issues and to examine the potential for reducing the country’s maternal health inequalities.

The review found the following:

• An apparent lack of coordinated economic, social, and health strategy and policies focused on improving maternal health

• No acknowledgment in national health policy of the limitations of the medical model of maternal health and little apparent mention of the social model

• No evident national frameworks for quality assurance in maternity care

• Lack of recognition of the importance of woman-centered care

• No evident comprehensive maternal health needs assessment to underpin coordinated multisector working

• An apparent lack of reliable national data collection for setting inequality targets and monitoring progress

• No apparent performance-focused management system for improving maternity care nationally.

Although India has made large increases in maternal health care provision over recent decades, a pragmatic review of government policies, the reports of international agencies, and the findings of published research studies indicate that major barriers exist to reducing maternal health inequalities and to achieving good quality care for disadvantaged women. The main barrier appears to be the widespread use at all levels, including government, of the medical model of maternal health, which focuses mostly on obstetric interventions and fails to address the wider economic and social determinants of maternal health or to use a woman-centered approach to maternity care.

We recommend that Indian governments adopt instead a “social model” approach to maternal health improvement and urgently employ a public health strategy led by a national multisector task force to reduce inequalities in maternal health.