Kenneth C Johnson1, Betty-Anne Daviss. 1. Surveillance and Risk Assessment Division, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, PL 6702A, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A OK9. ken_lcdc_johnson@phac-aspc.gc.ca <ken_lcdc_johnson@phac-aspc.gc.ca>
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of home births in North America involving direct entry midwives, in jurisdictions where the practice is not well integrated into the healthcare system. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: All home births involving certified professional midwives across the United States (98% of cohort) and Canada, 2000. PARTICIPANTS: All 5418 women expecting to deliver in 2000 supported by midwives with a common certification and who planned to deliver at home when labour began. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intrapartum and neonatal mortality, perinatal transfer to hospital care, medical intervention during labour, breast feeding, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: 655 (12.1%) women who intended to deliver at home when labour began were transferred to hospital. Medical intervention rates included epidural (4.7%), episiotomy (2.1%), forceps (1.0%), vacuum extraction (0.6%), and caesarean section (3.7%); these rates were substantially lower than for low risk US women having hospital births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated. CONCLUSIONS: Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of home births in North America involving direct entry midwives, in jurisdictions where the practice is not well integrated into the healthcare system. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: All home births involving certified professional midwives across the United States (98% of cohort) and Canada, 2000. PARTICIPANTS: All 5418 women expecting to deliver in 2000 supported by midwives with a common certification and who planned to deliver at home when labour began. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intrapartum and neonatal mortality, perinatal transfer to hospital care, medical intervention during labour, breast feeding, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: 655 (12.1%) women who intended to deliver at home when labour began were transferred to hospital. Medical intervention rates included epidural (4.7%), episiotomy (2.1%), forceps (1.0%), vacuum extraction (0.6%), and caesarean section (3.7%); these rates were substantially lower than for low risk US women having hospital births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated. CONCLUSIONS: Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States.
Authors: Patricia A Janssen; Shoo K Lee; Elizabeth M Ryan; Duncan J Etches; Duncan F Farquharson; Donlim Peacock; Michael C Klein Journal: CMAJ Date: 2002-02-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jenny W Y Pang; James D Heffelfinger; Greg J Huang; Thomas J Benedetti; Noel S Weiss Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: F Simonet; R Wilkins; E Labranche; J Smylie; M Heaman; P Martens; W D Fraser; K Minich; Y Wu; C Carry; Z-C Luo Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 3.710