Home birth integration into the health care systems of eleven international jurisdictions

Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among low-risk pregnancies in Ontario, Canada (2012-2021): A protocol for a population-based propensity score weighted cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that for low-risk pregnancies, planned home births attended by a skilled health professional in settings where such services are well integrated are associated with lower risk of intrapartum interventions and no increase in adverse health outcomes. Monitoring and updating evidence on the safety of planned home births is necessary to inform ongoing clinical and policy decisions.

METHODS

This protocol describes a population-based retrospective cohort study which aims to compare risk of (a) neonatal morbidity and mortality, and (b) maternal outcomes and birth interventions, between people at low obstetrical risk with a planned home birth with a midwife, a planned a hospital birth with a midwife, or a planned hospital birth with a physician. The study population will include Ontario residents who gave birth in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2021. We will use data collected prospectively in a provincial perinatal data registry. The primary outcome will be severe neonatal morbidity or mortality, a composite binary outcome that includes one or more of the following conditions: stillbirth during the intrapartum period, neonatal death (death of a liveborn infant in the first 28 completed days of life), five-minute Apgar score <4, or infant resuscitation requiring cardiac compressions. We will conduct a stratified analysis with three strata: nulliparous, parous-no previous caesarean birth, and parous-prior caesarean birth. To reduce the impact of selection bias in estimating the effect of planned place of birth on neonatal and maternal outcomes, we will use propensity score (PS) overlap weighting (OW) and modified Poisson regression to conduct multivariate analyses.

Systematic review of women's experiences of planning home birth in consultation with maternity care providers in middle to high-income countries

AIM

To synthesise findings from published studies, which reported on women's experiences of planning a home birth in consultation with maternity care providers.

DESIGN

Systematic Review DATA SOURCES: We searched seven bibliographic databases, (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL plus, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane (Central and Library), from January 2015 to 29th April 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Primary studies were included if they investigated women's experiences of planning a home birth with maternity care providers, in upper-middle and high-income countries and written in English language. Studies were analysed using thematic synthesis. GRADE-CERQual was used to assess the quality, coherence, adequacy and relevance of data. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO registration ID: CRD 42018095042 (updated 28th September 2020) and published.

RESULTS

1274 articles were retrieved, and 410 duplicates removed. Following screening and quality appraisal, 20 eligible studies (19 qualitative and 1 survey) involving 2,145 women were included.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Women's prior traumatic experience of hospital birth and a preference for physiological birth motivated their assertive decision to have a planned home birth despite criticisms and stigmatisation from their social circle and some maternity care providers. Midwives' competence and support enhanced women's confidence and positive experiences of planning a home birth.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This review highlights the stigma that some women feel and the importance of support from health professionals, particularly midwives when planning a home birth. We recommend accessible evidence-based information for women and their families to support women's decision-making for planned home birth. The findings from this review can be used to inform woman-centred planned home birth services, particularly in the UK, (although evidence is drawn from papers in eight other countries, so findings are relevant elsewhere), which will impact positively on the experiences of women who are planning home birth.

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.

A lack of reproductive agency in facility-based births makes home births a first choice regardless of potential risks and medical needs-a qualitative study among multiparous women in Somaliland

Background

Around 20% of births in Somaliland take place at health facilities staffed by trained healthcare professionals; 80% take place at home assisted by Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) with no formal training. There has been no research into women’s choice of place of birth.

Objective

In this study, we explore multipara women’s needs and preferences when choosing the place of birth.

Method

An explorative qualitative study using individual in-depth interviews analysed inductively using content analysis. The interviews were conducted in Somaliland with 25 multiparous women who had experience of giving birth both at home and at a health facility within the past three years.

Results

The results provide a description of how, for women in Somaliland, a lack of reproductive agency in facility-based births makes home births a first choice regardless of potential risks and medical need. The women in this study desired intentionality in their role as mothers and sought some measure of control over the environment where they planned to give birth, depending on the circumstances of that particular birth. The results describe what quality care means for multipara women in Somaliland and how women choose birthplace based on previous experiences of care. The expectation of respectful care was a vital part for women when choosing a place of birth.

Conclusion

To meet women’s needs and preferences in Somaliland, further investments are needed to strengthen the midwifery profession and to define and test a context specific midwife-led continuity of care model to be scaled up. A dialogue to create new roles and responsibilities for the TBAs who attend most home births is further needed to link them to the formal healthcare system and assure timely healthcare seeking during pregnancy and birth.

Smooth Transitions: Enhancing Interprofessional Collaboration when Planned Community Births Transfer to Hospital Care

In Washington state, planned community births are attended by direct entry licensed midwives (LMs) and certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). The most recently published vital statistics data from 2018 reported that 3.6% of the 84,648 births in Washington occurred at home or in freestanding birthing centers. Approximately 16.2% of planned home birth and birth center clients experience intrapartum or early postpartum transfer to the hospital, while 1.8% of their newborns do. The safety of and satisfaction with these types of referrals depends on multisystem processes performed by a variety of health care professionals. Smooth Transitions is a quality improvement (QI) initiative in Washington state that was developed to enhance interprofessional collaboration between community-based midwives, emergency medical services (EMS), and hospital personnel to improve the quality of hospital transfers from planned community settings. Key interventions to date have included (1) information sharing to dispel misconceptions and provide context regarding community births and midwives; (2) co-creation of transfer guidelines; (3) regularly held interprofessional meetings to review transfers and build relationships; and (4) ongoing review of qualitative feedback that captures the perspectives of all involved. Responses on questionnaires and audits indicate that Smooth Transitions has had a positive impact on provider, staff, and patient experiences with hospital transfers. Future endeavors will include strengthening quantitative data collection processes to measure safety indicators, expanding relationships with EMS, and building a case review process that is legally protected. By engaging representatives of all stakeholder groups and addressing community-to-hospital transfers as a multisystems issue, replication of the Smooth Transitions QI Program nationally could promote increased community midwifery integration by enhancing the referral experience for both patients and caregivers.

Global stakeholder perspectives of home birth: a systematic scoping review

Home birth is experienced by people very differently worldwide. These experiences likely differ by the type of stakeholder involved (women, their support persons, birth attendants, policy-makers), the experience itself (low-risk birth, transfer to hospital, previous deliveries), and by the health system within which home birth occurs (e.g., high-resource versus low- and middle-resource countries). Research evidence of stakeholders' perspectives of home birth could usefully inform personal and policy decisions about choosing and providing home birth, but the current literature is fragmented and its breadth is not fully understood.We conducted a systematic scoping review to understand how the research literature on stakeholders' perspectives of home birth is characterized in terms of populations, settings and identified issues, and what potential gaps exist in the research evidence. A range of electronic, web-based and key informant sources of evidence were searched. Located references were assessed, data extracted, and descriptively analyzed using robust methods.Our analysis included 460 full reports. Findings from 210 reports of studies in high-resource countries suggested that research with fathers and same-sex partners, midwives, and vulnerable populations and perspectives of freebirth and transfer to hospital could be synthesized. Gaps in primary research exist with respect to family members, policy makers, and those living in rural and remote locations. A further 250 reports of studies in low- and middle-resource countries suggested evidence for syntheses related to fathers and other family members, policy makers, and other health care providers and examination of issues related to emergency transfer to hospital, rural and remote home birth, and those who birth out of hospital, often at home, despite receiving antenatal care intended to increase healthcare-seeking behavior. Gaps in primary research suggest an examination is needed of perspectives in countries with higher maternal mortality and among first-time mothers and young mothers.Our scoping review identified a considerable body of research evidence on stakeholder perspectives of home birth. These could inform the complex factors influencing personal decisions and health system planning around home birth in both high- and low- and middle-resource countries. Future primary research is warranted on specific stakeholders worldwide and with vulnerable populations in areas of high maternal mortality.

Birth Outcomes for Planned Home and Licensed Freestanding Birth Center Births in Washington State

OBJECTIVE

To describe rates of maternal and perinatal birth outcomes for community births and to compare outcomes by planned place of birth (home vs state-licensed, freestanding birth center) in a Washington State birth cohort, where midwifery practice and integration mirrors international settings.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all births attended by members of a statewide midwifery professional association that were within professional association guidelines and met eligibility criteria for planned birth center birth (term gestation, singleton, vertex fetus with no known fluid abnormalities at term, no prior cesarean birth, no hypertensive disorders, no prepregnancy diabetes), from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. Outcome rates were calculated for all planned community births in the cohort. Estimated relative risks were calculated comparing delivery and perinatal outcomes for planned births at home to state-licensed birth centers, adjusted for parity and other confounders.

RESULTS

The study population included 10,609 births: 40.9% planned home and 59.1% planned birth center births. Intrapartum transfers to hospital were more frequent among nulliparous individuals (30.5%; 95% CI 29.2-31.9) than multiparous individuals (4.2%; 95% CI 3.6-4.6). The cesarean delivery rate was 11.4% (95% CI 10.2-12.3) in nulliparous individuals and 0.87% (95% CI 0.7-1.1) in multiparous individuals. The perinatal mortality rate after the onset of labor (intrapartum and neonatal deaths through 7 days) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.19-1.04) per 1,000 births. Rates for other adverse outcomes were also low. Compared with planned birth center births, planned home births had similar risks in crude and adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

Rates of adverse outcomes for this cohort in a U.S. state with well-established and integrated community midwifery were low overall. Birth outcomes were similar for births planned at home or at a state-licensed, freestanding birth center.

Women's perceptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria for publicly-funded homebirth - A survey

BACKGROUND

There are 15 publicly-funded homebirth programs in Australia. Women's access to these programs is determined by program specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.

AIMS

To examine women's perception of inclusion and exclusion criteria for publicly-funded homebirth programs in Australia and how these perceptions may influence women's choices and access to these programs.

METHODS

A national online survey was conducted and promoted through social media networks to women interested in homebirth in Australia. Quantitative data were analysed to generate descriptive statistics and a content analysis was performed on qualitative data.

FINDINGS

A total of 830 surveys were collected. Most women were supportive of inclusion and exclusion criteria related to social and environmental factors, although there was ambivalence about requiring ambulance cover, not having a history of domestic violence in the current relationship and requiring the woman to speak basic English. With regards to obstetric factors, only a requirement for labour to commence spontaneously at term was supported by over half of participants. All other obstetric related criteria had over half of participants disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that they should be used to prevent a woman from birthing at home. A desire for choice and access was frequently mentioned in the qualitative data.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to address the lack of choice many women experience when pregnant and the lack of equitable access to affordable homebirth services in Australia.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for publicly-funded homebirth in Australia: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are fifteen publicly-funded homebirth programs currently operating in Australia. Suitability for these programs is determined by a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

AIM

The aim of this scoping review is to identify common inclusion and exclusion criteria for publicly-funded homebirth programs and other related factors that affect access to these programs.

METHODS

A Google search was conducted for publicly-funded homebirth programs listed on the National Publicly-funded Homebirth Consortium website. Public websites, documents, and policies were analysed to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria for these programs.

FINDINGS

Eleven of the 15 publicly-funded homebirth programs mention the availability of homebirth on their health service website, with varying levels of information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria available. Two of the programs with no information on their health service website are covered by a state-wide guideline. Additional details were sought directly from programs and obtaining further information from some individual homebirth programs was challenging. Variation in inclusion and exclusion criteria exists between programs. Common areas of variation include restrictions relating to Body Mass Index, parity, age, English language ability, tests required during pregnancy, and gestation at booking to the homebirth program.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for a publicly-funded homebirth program determines women's access to the program. Limited publicly available information regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria for many publicly-funded homebirth programs is likely to limit women's awareness of and access to these programs.

Home births: A growing phenomenon with potential risks

Home birth is a controversial issue that raises safety concerns for paediatricians and obstetricians. Hospital birth was the cornerstone to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. This reduction in mortality has resulted in considering pregnancy and childbirth as a safe procedure, which, together with a greater social awareness of the need for the humanisation of these processes, have led to an increase in the demand for home birth. Studies from countries such as Australia, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom show that home birth can provide advantages to the mother and the newborn. It needs to be provided with sufficient material means, and should be attended by trained and accredited professionals, and needs to be perfectly coordinated with the hospital obstetrics and neonatology units, in order to guarantee its safety. Therefore, in our environment, there are no safety data or sufficient scientific evidence to support home births at present.

[Home births: A growing phenomenon with potential risks]

Home birth is a controversial issue that raises safety concerns for paediatricians and obstetricians. Hospital birth was the cornerstone to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. This reduction in mortality has resulted in considering pregnancy and childbirth as a safe procedure, which, together with a greater social awareness of the need for the humanisation of these processes, have led to an increase in the demand for home birth. Studies from countries such as Australia, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom show that home birth can provide advantages to the mother and the newborn. It needs to be provided with sufficient material means, and should be attended by trained and accredited professionals, and needs to be perfectly coordinated with the hospital obstetrics and neonatology units, in order to guarantee its safety. Therefore, in our environment, there are no safety data or sufficient scientific evidence to support home births at present.

Low-Risk Planned Out-of-Hospital Births: Characteristics and Perinatal Outcomes in Different Italian Birth Settings

BACKGROUND

The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries.

METHODS

1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37-42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample.

RESULTS

living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09-2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02-3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06-2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08-3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06-6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75-2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93-3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).

Maternal outcomes and birth interventions among women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

We previously concluded that risk of stillbirth, neonatal mortality or morbidity is not different whether birth is intended at home or hospital. Here, we compare the occurrence of birth interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women who begin labour intending to birth at home compared to women intending to birth in hospital.

METHODS

We used our registered protocol (PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk, No.CRD42013004046) and searched five databases from 1990-2018. Using R, we obtained pooled estimates of effect (accounting for study design, study setting and parity).

FINDINGS

16 studies provided data from ~500,000 intended home births for the meta-analyses. There were no reported maternal deaths. When controlling for parity in well-integrated settings we found women intending to give birth at home compared to hospital were less likely to experience: caesarean section OR 0.58(0.44,0.77); operative vaginal birth OR 0.42(0.23,0.76); epidural analgesia OR 0.30(0.24,0.38); episiotomy OR 0.45(0.28,0.73); 3rd or 4th degree tear OR 0.57(0.43,0.75); oxytocin augmentation OR 0.37(0.26,0.51) and maternal infection OR 0.23(0.15,0.35). Pooled results for postpartum haemorrhage showed women intending home births were either less likely or did not differ from those intending hospital birth [OR 0.66(0.54,0.80) and RR 1.30(0.79,2.13) from 2 studies that could not be pooled with the others]. Similar results were found when data were stratified by parity and by degree of integration into health systems.

INTERPRETATION

Among low-risk women, those intending to birth at home experienced fewer birth interventions and untoward maternal outcomes. These findings along with earlier work reporting neonatal outcomes inform families, health care providers and policy makers around the safety of intended home births.

FUNDING

Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant.

A pathway to establish a publicly funded home birth program in Australia

BACKGROUND

Home births provide women a birth choice where they may feel more comfortable and confident in their ability to give birth.

PROBLEM

Most women in Victoria do not have publicly funded access to appropriately trained health professionals if they choose to give birth at home.

METHODS

This paper describes the process of setting up a publicly funded home birth service and provide details of description of the set up and governance. We also report outcomes over 9 years with respect to parity, transfer to hospital, adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 191 women who were still booked into the home birth program at 36 weeks gestation, 148 (77.5%) women gave birth at home and 43 (22.5%) women were transferred into the hospital. The overall rate of vaginal birth was also high among the women in the home birth program, 185 (96.9%) with no added complications ascribed to home births. Such as severe perineal trauma [n=1] 0.6% PPH [n=4] 2.7%, Apgar score less than 7 at 5min [n=0] admissions post home birth to special care nursery [n=2] 1.35%.

DISCUSSION

This unique study provides a detailed road map of setting up a home birth practice to facilitate other institutions keen to build a publicly funded home birth service. The birth outcome data was found to be consistent with other Australian studies on low risk home births.

CONCLUSION

Well-designed home birth programs following best clinical practices and procedures can provide a safe birthing option for low risk women.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2019

A review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants.

Perinatal or neonatal mortality among women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

More women are choosing to birth at home in well-resourced countries. Concerns persist that out-of-hospital birth contributes to higher perinatal and neonatal mortality. This systematic review and meta-analyses determines if risk of fetal or neonatal loss differs among low-risk women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to low-risk women intending to give birth in hospital.

METHODS

In April 2018 we searched five databases from 1990 onward and used R to obtain pooled estimates of effect. We stratified by study design, study settings and parity. The primary outcome is any perinatal or neonatal death after the onset of labour. The study protocol is peer-reviewed, published and registered (PROSPERO No.CRD42013004046).

FINDINGS

We identified 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis including ~ 500,000 intended home births. Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03).

INTERPRETATION

The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital.

FUNDING

Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant.

RESEARCH IN CONTEXT

Evidence before this study Although there is increasing acceptance for intended home birth as a choice for birthing women, controversy about its safety persists. The varying responses of obstetrical societies to intended home birth provide evidence of contrasting views. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials addressing this topic included one small trial and noted that in the absence of adequately sized randomised controlled trials on the topic of intended home compared to intended hospital birth, a peer reviewed protocol be published to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis including observational studies. Reviews to date have been limited by design or methodological issues and none has used a protocol published a priori.Added value of this study Individual studies are underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences in rare outcomes. This study uses a published peer-reviewed protocol and is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes of intended home and hospital birth. We take study design, parity and jurisdictional support for home birth into account. Our study provides much needed information to policy makers, care providers and women and families when planning for birth.Implications of all the available evidence Women who are low risk and who intend to give birth at home do not appear to have a different risk of fetal or neonatal loss compared to a population of similarly low risk women intending to give birth in hospital.