Literature DB >> 23919710

Publicly funded homebirth in Australia: a review of maternal and neonatal outcomes over 6 years.

Christine Catling-Paull1, Rebecca L Coddington, Maralyn J Foureur, Caroline S E Homer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report maternal and neonatal outcomes for Australian women planning a publicly funded homebirth from 2005 to 2010. DESIGN, SETTING AND
SUBJECTS: Retrospective analysis of data on women who planned a homebirth and on their babies. Data for 2005-2010 (or from the commencement of a program to 2010) were requested from the 12 publicly funded homebirth programs in place at the time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal outcomes (mortality; place and mode of birth; perineal trauma; type of management of the third stage of labour; postpartum haemorrhage; transfer to hospital); and neonatal outcomes (early mortality; Apgar score at 5 minutes; birthweight; breastfeeding initially and at 6 weeks; significant morbidity; transfer to hospital; admission to a special care nursery).
RESULTS: Nine publicly funded homebirth programs in Australia provided data accounting for 97% of births in these programs during the period studied. Of the 1807 women who intended to give birth at home at the onset of labour, 1521 (84%) did so. 315 (17%) were transferred to hospital during labour or within one week of giving birth. The rate of stillbirth and early neonatal death was 3.3 per 1000 births; when deaths because of expected fetal anomalies were excluded it was 1.7 per 1000 births. The rate of normal vaginal birth was 90%.
CONCLUSION: This study provides the first national evaluation of a significant proportion of women choosing publicly funded homebirth in Australia; however, the sample size does not have sufficient power to draw a conclusion about safety. More research is warranted into the safety of alternative places of birth within Australia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23919710     DOI: 10.5694/mja12.11665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  5 in total

Review 1.  Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth.

Authors:  Hong Jiang; Xu Qian; Guillermo Carroli; Paul Garner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-02-08

Review 2.  Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Vanessa Scarf; Christine Catling; Rosalie Viney; Caroline Homer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Planned home birth: benefits, risks, and opportunities.

Authors:  Ruth Zielinski; Kelly Ackerson; Lisa Kane Low
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-04-08

4.  Association between home birth and breast feeding outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 28 125 mother-infant pairs from Ireland and the UK.

Authors:  Clare Quigley; Cristina Taut; Tamara Zigman; Louise Gallagher; Harry Campbell; Lina Zgaga
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth in Australia 2000 - 2012: a linked population data study.

Authors:  Caroline S E Homer; Seong L Cheah; Chris Rossiter; Hannah G Dahlen; David Ellwood; Maralyn J Foureur; Della A Forster; Helen L McLachlan; Jeremy J N Oats; David Sibbritt; Charlene Thornton; Vanessa L Scarf
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.