Eileen K Hutton1, Adriana Cappelletti2, Angela H Reitsma2, Julia Simioni2, Jordyn Horne2, Caroline McGregor2, Rashid J Ahmed2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Hutton, Ahmed), The Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine; Midwifery Education Program (Hutton, Cappelletti, Reitsma, Simioni, Horne, McGregor), Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. huttone@mcmaster.ca. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Hutton, Ahmed), The Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine; Midwifery Education Program (Hutton, Cappelletti, Reitsma, Simioni, Horne, McGregor), Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that planned home birth is associated with a decreased likelihood of intrapartum intervention with no difference in neonatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth. The purpose of our study was to evaluate different birth settings by comparing neonatal mortality, morbidity and rates of birth interventions between planned home and planned hospital births in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used a provincial database of all midwifery-booked pregnancies between 2006 and 2009 to compare women who planned home birth at the onset of labour to a matched cohort of women with low-risk pregnancies who had planned hospital births attended by midwives. We conducted subgroup analyses by parity. Our primary outcome was stillbirth, neonatal death (< 28 d) or serious morbidity (Apgar score < 4 at 5 min or resuscitation with positive pressure ventilation and cardiac compressions). RESULTS: We compared 11 493 planned home births and 11 493 planned hospital births. The risk of our primary outcome did not differ significantly by planned place of birth (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.55). These findings held true for both nulliparous (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62-1.73) and multiparous women (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49-2.05). All intrapartum interventions were lower among planned home births. INTERPRETATION: Compared with planned hospital birth, planned home birth attended by midwives in a jurisdiction where home birth is well-integrated into the health care system was not associated with a difference in serious adverse neonatal outcomes but was associated with fewer intrapartum interventions.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that planned home birth is associated with a decreased likelihood of intrapartum intervention with no difference in neonatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth. The purpose of our study was to evaluate different birth settings by comparing neonatal mortality, morbidity and rates of birth interventions between planned home and planned hospital births in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used a provincial database of all midwifery-booked pregnancies between 2006 and 2009 to compare women who planned home birth at the onset of labour to a matched cohort of women with low-risk pregnancies who had planned hospital births attended by midwives. We conducted subgroup analyses by parity. Our primary outcome was stillbirth, neonatal death (< 28 d) or serious morbidity (Apgar score < 4 at 5 min or resuscitation with positive pressure ventilation and cardiac compressions). RESULTS: We compared 11 493 planned home births and 11 493 planned hospital births. The risk of our primary outcome did not differ significantly by planned place of birth (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.55). These findings held true for both nulliparous (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62-1.73) and multiparous women (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49-2.05). All intrapartum interventions were lower among planned home births. INTERPRETATION: Compared with planned hospital birth, planned home birth attended by midwives in a jurisdiction where home birth is well-integrated into the health care system was not associated with a difference in serious adverse neonatal outcomes but was associated with fewer intrapartum interventions.
Authors: A de Jonge; B Y van der Goes; A C J Ravelli; M P Amelink-Verburg; B W Mol; J G Nijhuis; J Bennebroek Gravenhorst; S E Buitendijk Journal: BJOG Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 6.531
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: 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: Peter Brocklehurst; Pollyanna Hardy; Jennifer Hollowell; Louise Linsell; Alison Macfarlane; Christine McCourt; Neil Marlow; Alison Miller; Mary Newburn; Stavros Petrou; David Puddicombe; Maggie Redshaw; Rachel Rowe; Jane Sandall; Louise Silverton; Mary Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-11-23
Authors: Alina Zgardau; Joel G Ray; Nancy N Baxter; Chenthila Nagamuthu; Alison L Park; Sumit Gupta; Paul C Nathan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: N Bolten; A de Jonge; E Zwagerman; P Zwagerman; T Klomp; J J Zwart; C C Geerts Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Ank de Jonge; Lilian Peters; Caroline C Geerts; Jos J M van Roosmalen; Jos W R Twisk; Peter Brocklehurst; Jennifer Hollowell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Melanie M J Wiegerinck; Birgit Y van der Goes; Anita C J Ravelli; Joris A M van der Post; Fayette C D Buist; Pieter Tamminga; Ben W Mol Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jacoba van der Kooy; Erwin Birnie; Semiha Denktas; Eric A P Steegers; Gouke J Bonsel Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 3.007