Ole Olsen1, Jette A Clausen. 1. The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen,Copenhagen K, Denmark. ole.olsen@sund.ku.dk.ole.cph@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be 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 randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be 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 randomised controlled trials.
Authors: M Klein; A Papageorgiou; R Westreich; L Spector-Dunsky; V Elkins; M S Kramer; M M Gelfand Journal: Can Med Assoc J Date: 1984-12-15 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Patricia A Janssen; Lee Saxell; Lesley A Page; Michael C Klein; Robert M Liston; Shoo K Lee Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Berglind Halfdansdottir; Margaret E Wilson; Ingegerd Hildingsson; Olof A Olafsdottir; Alexander Kr Smarason; Herdis Sveinsdottir Journal: Med Health Care Philos Date: 2015-11