Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review

The financial impact of offering publicly funded homebirths: A population-based microsimulation in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Despite strong evidence of benefits and increasing consumer demand for homebirth, Australia has failed to effectively upscale it. To promote the adoption and expansion of homebirth in the public health care system, policymakers require quantifiable results to evaluate its economic value. To date, there has been limited evaluation of the financial impact of birth settings for women at low risk of pregnancy complications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the difference in inpatient costs around birth between offering homebirth in the public maternity system versus not offering public homebirth to selected women who meet low-risk pregnancy criteria.

METHODS

We used a whole-of-population linked administrative dataset containing all women who gave birth in Queensland (one Australian State) between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2018 where publicly funded homebirth is not currently offered. We created a static microsimulation model to compare the inpatient cost difference for mother and baby around birth based on the women who gave birth between 01/07/2017 and 30/06/2018 (n = 36,314). The model comprised of a base model - representing standard public hospital care, and a counterfactual model - representing a hypothetical scenario where 5 % of women who gave birth in public hospitals planned to give birth at home prior to the onset of labour (n = 1816). Costs were reported in 2021/22 AUD.

RESULTS

In our hypothetical scenario, after considering the effect of assumptive place and mode of birth for these planned homebirths, the estimated State-level inpatient cost saving around birth (summed for mother and babies) per pregnancy were: AU$303.13 (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$186.94 (to Queensland public hospital funders). This calculates to a total cost saving per annum of AU$11 million (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$6.8 million (to Queensland public hospital funders).

CONCLUSION

A considerable amount of inpatient health care costs around birth could be saved if 5 % of women booked at their local public hospitals, planned to give birth at home through a public-funded homebirth program. This finding supports the establishment and expansion of the homebirth option in the public health care system.

The first alongside midwifery unit in Spain: A retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Midwife-led units have been shown to be safer and reduce interventions for women at low risk of complications at birth. In 2017, the first alongside birth center was opened in Spain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for women with uncomplicated pregnancies giving birth in the Midwife-led unit (MLU) and in the Obstetric unit (OU) of the same hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study comparing birth outcomes between low-risk women, depending on their planned place of birth. Data were analyzed with an intention-to-treat approach for women that gave birth between January 2018 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 878 women were included in the study, 255 women chose to give birth in the MLU and 623 in the OU. Findings showed that women in the MLU were more likely to have a vaginal birth (91.4%) than in the OU (83.8%) (aOR 2.98 [95%CI 1.62-5.47]), less likely to have an instrumental delivery, 3.9% versus 11.2% (0.25 [0.11-0.55]), to use epidural analgesia, 19.6% versus 77.9% (0.15 [0.04-0.17]) and to have an episiotomy, 7.4% versus 15.4% (0.27 [0.14-0.53]). There were no differences in rates of postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, or adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates from the MLU to the OU were 21.1% and 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of obstetric interventions in Spain could be reduced by implementing midwife-led units across the whole system, without an increase in maternal or neonatal complications.

Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

BACKGROUND

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.  SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just 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 RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.

Factors influencing birth setting decision making in the United States: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest perinatal morbidity and mortality (M&M) rates among all high-resource countries in the world. Birth settings (birth center, home, or hospital) influence clinical outcomes, experience of care, and health care costs. Increasing use of low-intervention birth settings can reduce perinatal M&M. This integrative review evaluated factors influencing birth setting decision making among women and birthing people in the United States.

METHODS

A search strategy was implemented within the CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the review, and the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model was used to evaluate methodological quality and appraisal of the evidence. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative review framework informed the extraction and analysis of the data and generation of findings.

RESULTS

We identified 23 articles that met inclusion criteria. Four analytical themes were generated that described factors that influence birth setting decision making in the United States: "Birth Setting Safety vs. Risk," "Influence of Media, Family, and Friends on Birth Setting Awareness," "Presence or Absence of Choice and Control," and "Access to Options."

DISCUSSION

Supporting women and birthing people to make informed decisions by providing information about birth setting options and variations in models of care by birth setting is a critical patient-centered strategy to ensure equitable access to low-intervention birth settings. Policies that expand affordable health insurance to cover midwifery care in all birth settings are needed to enable people to make informed choices about birth location that align with their values, individual pregnancy characteristics, and preferences.

Salary and Workload of Midwives Across Birth Center Practice Types and State Regulatory Structures

INTRODUCTION

Expansion of the midwifery-led birth center model of care is one pathway to improving maternal and newborn health. There are a variety of practice types among birth centers and a range of state regulatory structures of midwifery practice across the United States. This study investigated how those variations relate to pay and workload for midwives at birth centers.

METHODS

Data from the American Association of Birth Centers Practice Survey and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report on occupational employment and wage statistics were analyzed to explore how midwife salaries and workload at birth centers compare within and beyond the birth center model.

RESULTS

Survey results from 161 birth centers across the United States demonstrate wide variation in nurse-midwife salaries and are inconsistent with nurse-midwife salaries across all settings as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The reported number of hours worked by midwives within the birth center model is high. Salaries of midwives who work in birth center-only practices were consistently lower than salaries of midwives who worked in blended birth center and hospital practices, independent of the midwife's level of experience, geographic region of the country, and state regulatory structure.

DISCUSSION

Further research is needed to understand how to bring salaries and workload for midwives at birth centers into alignment with national averages.

Identification and assessment of a comprehensive set of structural factors associated with hospital costs in Switzerland

Structural factors can influence hospital costs beyond case-mix differences. However, accepted measures on how to distinguish hospitals with regard to cost-related organizational and regional differences are lacking in Switzerland. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify and assess a comprehensive set of hospital attributes in relation to average case-mix adjusted costs of hospitals. Using detailed hospital and patient-level data enriched with regional information, we derived a list of 23 cost predictors, examined how they are associated with costs, each other, and with different hospital types, and identified principal components within them. Our results showed that attributes describing size, complexity, and teaching-intensity of hospitals (number of beds, discharges, departments, and rate of residents) were positively related to costs and showed the largest values in university (i.e., academic teaching) and central general hospitals. Attributes related to rarity and financial risk of patient mix (ratio of rare DRGs, ratio of children, and expected loss potential based on DRG mix) were positively associated with costs and showed the largest values in children's and university hospitals. Attributes characterizing the provision of essential healthcare functions in the service area (ratio of emergency/ ambulance admissions, admissions during weekends/ nights, and admissions from nursing homes) were positively related to costs and showed the largest values in central and regional general hospitals. Regional attributes describing the location of hospitals in large agglomerations (in contrast to smaller agglomerations and rural areas) were positively associated with costs and showed the largest values in university hospitals. Furthermore, the four principal components identified within the hospital attributes fully explained the observed cost variations across different hospital types. These uncovered relationships may serve as a foundation for objectifying discussions about cost-related heterogeneity in Swiss hospitals and support policymakers to include structural characteristics into cost benchmarking and hospital reimbursement.

Cost analysis of planned out-of-hospital births in Italy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In Italy, the main birthplace is a hospital, and only a few women choose an out-of-hospital setting. This study assessed the costs related to delivery in different birthplaces in Italy.

METHODS

The cost analysis considered direct and amortizable costs associated with mother-child care in physiological conditions. An analysis of the hospital births considered the Diagnoses-Related Groups 373 and 391. To estimate the cost of the births assisted privately by freelance midwives, an evaluation based on an experts' opinion was carried out.

RESULTS

Childbirth hospital care in Italy amounts to € 1832.00, and birth in an out-of-hospital setting accredited with the National Health System has a full cost of € 1345.19 in the 'maternity home' and € 909.60 at home. The average cost of the birth in 'private maternity homes' amounted to € 3260.00, while at-home births amounted to € 2910.00.

CONCLUSIONS

Any accreditation of out-of-hospital settings by the NHS would considerably reduce the waste of economic resources compared to hospital childbirth.

The Cost of Home Birth in the United States

Policy decisions about the accessibility of home birth hinge on questions of safety and affordability. Families consider safety and cost along with the comfort and familiarity of birthing venues. A substantial literature addresses safety concerns, generally reporting that for low-risk mothers in the care of credentialed midwives, the safety of planned home births is comparable to that in birth centers and hospitals. The lack of notable safety tradeoffs for low-risk mothers elevates the relevance of the economic efficiency of home births. The available cost figures for home births are largely out of date or anecdotal. The purpose of this research is to offer scholars, policymakers, and families improved estimates of both the cost of home births and the potential savings from greater access to home births. On the basis of a nationwide study, we estimate that the average cost of a home birth in the United States is USD 4650, which is significantly below existing cost estimates for an uncomplicated birth center or hospital birth. Further, we find that each shift of one percent of births from hospitals to homes would represent an annual cost savings to society of at least USD 321 million.

Modelling the cost of place of birth: a pathway analysis

BACKGROUND

In New South Wales (NSW), Australia there are three settings available for women at low risk of complications to give birth: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, 93.6% of babies were planned to be born in hospital, 6.0% in a birth centre and 0.4% at home. Availability of alternative birth settings is limited and the cost of providing birth at home or in a birth centre from the perspective of the health system is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to model the cost of the trajectories of women who planned to give birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital from the public sector perspective.

METHODS

This was a population-based study using linked datasets from NSW, Australia. Women included met the following selection criteria: 37-41 completed weeks of pregnancy, spontaneous onset of labour, and singleton pregnancy at low risk of complications. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and Australian Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRGs) were applied to each trajectory to estimate the cost of birth. A scenario analysis was undertaken to model the cost for 30 000 women in one year.

FINDINGS

496 387 women were included in the dataset. Twelve potential outcome pathways were identified and each pathway was costed using AR-DRGs. An overall cost was also calculated by place of birth: $AUD4802 for homebirth, $AUD4979 for a birth centre birth and $AUD5463 for a hospital birth.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study provides some clarity into the financial saving of offering more options to women seeking an alternative to giving birth in hospital. Given the relatively lower rates of complex intervention and neonatal outcomes associated with women at low risk of complications, we can assume the cost of providing them with homebirth and birth centre options could be cost-effective.

The opportunity costs of birth in Australia: Hospital resource savings for a post-COVID-19 era

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 caused significant disruptions to health systems globally; however, restricting the family presence during birth saw an increase in women considering community birth options. This study aimed to quantify the hospital resource savings that could occur if all low-risk women in Australia gave birth at home or in birth centers.

METHODS

A whole-of-population linked administrative data set containing all women (n = 44 498) who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2015 was reweighted to represent all Australian women giving birth in 2017. A static microsimulation model of woman and infant health service resource use was created based on 2017 data. The model was comprised of a base model, representing "current" care, and a counterfactual model, representing hypothetical scenarios where all low-risk Australian women gave birth at home or in birth centers.

RESULTS

If all low-risk women gave birth at home in 2017, cesarean rates would have reduced from 13.4% to 2.7%. Similarly, there would have been 860 fewer inpatient bed days and 10.1 fewer hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. If all women gave birth in birth centers, cesarean rates would have reduced to 6.7%. In addition, over 760 inpatient bed days would have been saved along with 5.6 hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant health resource savings could occur by shifting low-risk births from hospitals to home birth and birth center services. Greater examination of Australian women's preferences for home birth and birth center birth models of care is needed.

The role of midwifery and other international insights for maternity care in the United States: An analysis of four countries

BACKGROUND

The United States (US) spends more on health care than any other high-resource country. Despite this, their maternal and newborn outcomes are worse than all other countries with similar levels of economic development. Our purpose was to describe maternal and newborn outcomes and organization of care in four high-resource countries (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) with consistently better outcomes and lower health care costs, and to identify opportunities for emulation and improvement in the United States.

METHOD

We examined resources that described health care organization and financing, provider types, birth settings, national, clinical guidelines, health care policies, surveillance data, and information for consumers. We conducted interviews with country stakeholders representing the disciplines of obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, neonatology, epidemiology, sociology, political science, public health, and health services. The results of the analysis were compared and contrasted with the US maternity system.

RESULTS

The four countries had lower rates of maternal mortality, low birthweight, and newborn and infant death than the United States. Five commonalities were identified as follows: (1) affordable/ accessible health care, (2) a maternity workforce that emphasized midwifery care and interprofessional collaboration, (3) respectful care and maternal autonomy, (4) evidence-based guidelines on place of birth, and (5) national data collections systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings reveal marked differences in the other countries compared to the United States. It is critical to consider the evidence for improved maternal and newborn outcomes with different models of care and to examine US cultural and structural failures that are leading to unacceptable and substandard maternal and infant outcomes.

Two decades of Birth Centre and midwifery-led care in South Australia, 1998-2016

BACKGROUND

Birth Centres (BC) are underpinned by a philosophy of woman- centred care and were pivotal in growing models of midwifery-led care in South Australia (SA).

AIM

To describe BC utilisation and the growth of midwifery-led care in SA over the past two decades.

METHODS

The SA Perinatal Statistics Collection was used to describe women birthing from 1998 to 2016. Number of births through midwifery-led services from 2004 to 2016 were obtained from unit managers. Analyses are descriptive.

FINDINGS

Women who birthed in BC in SA from 1998 to 2016 comprised approximately 6% of all births per year, and numbers have remained static. Three BC models operate in SA, all with different capacity. Proportionally, women not born in Australia are as likely to birth in BC as labour wards. The proportion of women who received midwifery-led care (whether affiliated with a BC or not), increased from 8.3% in 1998 to 19.2% of all births in 2016. Of the women who received midwifery-led care in 2016, 15.3% went on to birth in a midwifery-led model of care.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the overall number of BC births has not increased, women seeking midwifery-led care has more than doubled over the past two decades. BC encompass the midwifery philosophy, quality of care, and a physical home-like environment. The BC models in SA are managed through the three tertiary maternity units enabling women to access publicly funded midwifery care and should be more widely available.

The cost of vaginal birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital setting in New South Wales: A micro-costing study

BACKGROUND

Women want greater choice of place of birth in New South Wales, Australia. It is perceived to be more costly to health services for women with a healthy pregnancy to give birth at home or in a birth centre. It is not known how much it costs the health service to provide care for women planning to give birth in these settings.

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the direct cost of giving birth vaginally at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital for women at low risk of complications, in New South Wales.

METHODS

A micro-costing design was used. Observational (time and motion) and resource use data collection was undertaken to identify the staff time and resources required to provide care in a public hospital, birth centre or at home for women with a healthy pregnancy.

FINDINGS

The median cost of providing care for women who plan to give birth at home, in a birth centre and in a hospital were similar (AUD $2150.07, $2100.59 and $2097.30 respectively). Midwifery time was the largest contributor to the cost of birth at home, and overhead costs accounted for over half of the total cost of BC and hospital birth. The cost of consumables was low in all three settings.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we have found there is little difference in the cost to the health service when a woman has an uncomplicated vaginal birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital setting.

Outcomes by birth setting and caregiver for low risk women in Indonesia: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Care for women during pregnancy, labour, birth and the postpartum period is essential to reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, however the ideal place and organisation of care provision has not been established. The World Health Organization recommends a two-tier maternity care system involving first-level care in community facilities, with backup obstetric hospital care. However, evidence from high-income countries is increasingly showing benefits for low risk women birthing outside of hospital with skilled birth assistance and access to backup care, including lower rates of intervention. Indonesia is a lower middle-income country with a network of village based midwives who attend births at homes, clinics and hospitals, and has reduced mortality rates in recent decades while maintaining largely low rates of intervention. However, the country has not met its neonatal or maternal mortality reduction goals, and it is unclear whether greater improvements could be made if all women birthed in hospital. BODY: This paper reviewed the literature on birth outcomes by place of birth and/or caregiver for women considering their risk of complications in Indonesia. A systematic literature search of Pubmed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Popline, WHOLIS and clinical trials registers in 2016 and updated in 2018 resulted in screening 2211 studies after removing duplicates. Twenty four studies were found to present outcomes by place of birth or caregiver and were included. The studies were varied in their findings with respect of the outcomes for women birthing at home and in hospital, with and without skilled care. The quality of most studies was rated as poor or moderate using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Only one study gave an overall assessment of the risk status of the women included, making it impossible to draw conclusions about outcomes for low risk women specifically; other studies adjusted for various individual risk factors.

CONCLUSION

From the studies in this review, it is impossible to assess the outcomes for low risk women birthing with health professionals within and outside of Indonesian hospitals. This finding is supported by reviews from other countries with developing maternity systems. Better evidence and information is needed before determinations can be made about whether attended birth outside of hospitals is a safe option for low risk women outside of high income countries.

Cost-effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy: a structured review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Critical evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care models for women experiencing complex pregnancy is an important consideration in the review and reform of maternity services. Most studies either focus on women who experience healthy pregnancy or mixed risk samples. These results may not be generalised across the childbearing continuum to women with risk factors. This review critically evaluates studies that measure the cost of care for women with complex pregnancies, with a focus on method and quality.

AIMS / OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise and summarise the evidence relating to the combined cost-effectiveness, resource use and clinical effectiveness of midwifery continuity models for women who experience complex pregnancies and their babies in developed countries.

DESIGN

Structured review of the literature utilising a matrix method to critique the methods and quality of studies.

METHOD

A search of Medline, CINAHL, MIDIRS, DARE, EMBASE, OVID, PubMed, ProQuest, Informit, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) for the years 1994 - 2018 was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The review identified four areas of economic evaluation that related to women who experienced complex pregnancy and continuity of midwifery care. (1) cost and clinical effectiveness comparisons between continuity of midwifery care versus obstetric-led units; (2) cost of continuity of midwifery care and/or team midwifery compared to Standard Care; (3) cost-effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care for Australian Aboriginal women versus standard care; (4) patterns of antenatal care for women of high obstetric risk and comparative provider cost. Cost savings specific to women from high risk samples who received continuity of midwifery care compared with obstetric-led standard care was stated for only one study in the review. Kenny et al. 1994 identified cost savings of AUS $29 in the antenatal period for women who received the midwifery team model from a stratified sub-set of high-risk pregnant woman within a mixed risk sample of 446 women. One systematic review relevant to the UK context, Ryan et al. (2013), applied sensitivity analysis to include women of all risk categories. Where risk ratio for overall fetal/neonatal death was systematically varied based on the 95% confidence interval of 0.79 to 1.09 from pooled studies, the aggregate annual net monetary benefit for continuity of midwifery care ranged extremely widely from an estimated gain of £472 million to a loss of £202 million. Net health benefit ranged from an annual gain of 15 723 QALYs to a loss of 6 738 QALYs. All other studies in this review reported cost savings narratively or within mixed risk samples where risk stratification was not clearly stated or related to the midwifery team model only.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies that measure the cost of continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy across the childbearing continuum are limited and apply inconsistent methods of economic evaluation. The cost and outcomes of implementing continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy is an important issue that requires further investigation. Robust cost-effectiveness evidence is essential to inform decision makers, to implement sustainable systems change in comparative maternity models for pregnant women at risk and to address health inequity.

Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child

Despite decades of considerable economic investment in improving the health of families and newborns world-wide, aspirations for maternal and newborn health have yet to be attained in many regions. The global turn toward recognizing the importance of positive experiences of pregnancy, intrapartum and postnatal care, and care in the first weeks of life, while continuing to work to minimize adverse outcomes, signals a critical change in the maternal and newborn health care conversation and research prioritization. This paper presents "different research questions" drawing on evidence presented in the 2014 Lancet Series on Midwifery and a research prioritization study conducted with the World Health Organization. The results indicated that future research investment in maternal and newborn health should be on "right care," which is quality care that is tailored to individuals, weighs benefits and harms, is person-centered, works across the whole continuum of care, advances equity, and is informed by evidence, including cost-effectiveness. Three inter-related research themes were identified: examination and implementation of models of care that enhance both well-being and safety; investigating and optimizing physiological, psychological, and social processes in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period; and development and validation of outcome measures that capture short and longer term well-being. New, transformative research approaches should account for the underlying social and political-economic mechanisms that enhance or constrain the well-being of women, newborns, families, and societies. Investment in research capacity and capability building across all settings is critical, but especially in those countries that bear the greatest burden of poor outcomes. We believe this call to action for investment in the three research priorities identified in this paper has the potential to achieve these benefits and to realize the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal Three of good health and well-being for all.

Health policies for the reduction of obstetric interventions in singleton full-term births in Catalonia

AIM

To explore the effect of hospital's characteristics in the proportion of obstetric interventions (OI) performed in singleton fullterm births (SFTB) in Catalonia (2010-2014), while incentives were employed to reduce C-sections.

METHODS

Data about SFTB assisted at 42 public hospitals were extracted from the dataset of hospital discharges. Hospitals were classified according to the level of complexity, the volume of births attended, and the adoption of a non-medicalized delivery (NMD) strategy. The annual average change in the percentage for OI was calculated based on Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

The rate of OI (35% of all SFTB) including C-sections (20.6%) remained stable through the period. Hospitals attending less complex cases had a lower average of OI, while hospitals attending lower volumes had the highest average. Higher levels of complexity increased the use of C-sections (+4% yearly) and forceps (+16%). The adoption of the NMD strategy decreased the rate of C-sections.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of OI, including C-sections, remained stable in spite of public incentives to reduce them. The adoption of the NMD strategy could help in decreasing the rate of OI. To reduce the OI rate, new strategies should be launched as the development of low-risk pregnancies units, alignment of incentives and hospital payment, increased value of incentives and encouragement of a cultural shift towards non-medicalized births.

The ResQu Index: A new instrument to appraise the quality of research on birth place

Objective

Place of birth is a known determinant of health care outcomes, interventions and costs. Many studies have examined the maternal and perinatal outcomes when women plan to give birth in hospitals compared with births in birth centres or at home. However, these studies vary substantially in rigour; assessing their quality is challenging. Existing research appraisal tools do not always capture important elements of study design that are critical when comparing outcomes by planned place of birth. To address this deficiency, we aimed to develop a reliable instrument to rate the quality of primary research on maternal and newborn outcomes by place of birth.

Study design

The instrument development process involved five phases: 1) generation of items and a weighted scoring system; 2) content validation via a quantitative survey and a modified Delphi process with an international, multi-disciplinary panel of experts; 3) inter-rater consistency; 4) alignment with established research appraisal tools; and 5) pilot-testing of instrument usability.

Results

A Birth Place Research Quality Index (ResQu Index) was developed comprising 27 scored items that are summed to generate a weighted composite score out of 100 for studies comparing planned place of birth. Scale content validation indices were .89 for clarity, .94 for relevance and .90 for importance. The Index demonstrated substantial inter-rater consistency; pilot-testing confirmed feasibility and user-friendliness.

Conclusion

The ResQu Index is a reliable instrument to evaluate the quality of design, methods and interpretation of reported outcomes from research about place of birth. Higher-scoring studies have greater potential to inform evidence-based selection of birth place by clinicians, policy makers, and women and their families. The Index can also guide the design of future research on place of birth.