Statistics & Studies:

1)Obstetrics and Gynecology, volume 92, Issue 3, September 1998, Pages 461-470

Outcomes of intended home births in nurse-midwifery practice: a prospective descriptive study

Patricia Aikins Murphy DrPH, CNM; and Judith Fullerton PhD, CNM.


Outcomes of intended home births in nurse-midwifery practice: a prospective descriptive study
Patricia Aikins Murphy DrPH, CNM; and Judith Fullerton PhD, CNM.

Abstract
Objective: To describe the outcomes of intended home birth in the practices of certified nurse-midwives.
Methods: Twenty-nine US nurse-midwifery practices were recruited for the study in 1994. Women presenting for intended home birth in these practices were enrolled in the study from late 1994 to late 1995. Outcomes for all enrolled women were ascertained. Validity and reliability of submitted data were established.

Results: Of 1404 enrolled women intending home births, 6% miscarried, terminated the pregnancy or changed plans. Another 7.4% became ineligible for home birth prior to the onset of labor at term due to the development of perinatal problems and were referred for planned hospital birth. Of those women beginning labor with the intention of delivering at home, 102 (8.3%) were transferred to the hospital during labor. Ten mothers (0.8%) were transferred to the hospital after delivery, and 14 infants (1.1%) were transferred after birth. Overall intrapartal fetal and neonatal mortality for women beginning labor with the intention of delivering at home was 2.5 per 1000. For women actually delivering at home, intrapartal fetal and neonatal mortality was 1.8 per 1000.
Conclusion: Home birth can be accomplished with good outcomes under the care of qualified practitioners and within a system that facilitates transfer to hospital care when necessary. Intrapartal mortality during intended home birth is concentrated in postdates pregnancies with evidence of meconium passage.

2) British Medical Journal 2005; 330:1416-1423

Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America.
Kenneth C. Johnson and Betty-Anne Daviss

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.

3) Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health. 2006, Vol. 51,issue 2, pgs. 91-97

Satisfaction With Planned Place of Birth Among Midwifery Clients in British Columbia
Patricia A. Janssen, RN, PhD, Elaine A. Carty, CNM, MSN, Birgit Reime, DSc, MPH

The purpose of this study was to compare satisfaction with the birth experience among a population of women planning birth at home versus in hospital. In British Columbia, Canada, all midwives offer women meeting eligibility requirements for homebirth the choice to give birth in hospital or at home. Therefore, satisfaction can be attributed to planned place of birth, as the caregivers were the same in both settings. The mean overall score on the Labour Agentry Scale among women who had planned a homebirth (n = 550), 188.49 ± 16.85, was significantly higher than those who planned birth in hospital (n = 108), 176.60 ± 23.79; P < .001. Overall satisfaction with the birth experience was higher among women planning birth at home, 4.87 ± 0.42 versus 4.80 ± 0.49 on a scale of 1 to 5, although this difference was not statistically significant; P = .06. Among women whose actual place of birth was congruent with where they had planned, overall satisfaction was higher in the homebirth group, 4.95 ± 0.20 versus 4.75 ± 0.53; P < .001. Although satisfaction with the birth experience was high in both the home and hospital settings, women planning birth at home were somewhat more satisfied with their experience, particularly if they were able to complete the birth at home.


Additional studies on home birth


Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician.
Patricia A Janssen, Lee Saxell, Lesley A Page, Michael C Klein, Robert M Liston, Shoo K Lee Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2009.


Abstract

Background: Studies of planned home births attended by registered midwives have been limited by incomplete data, nonrepresentative sampling, inadequate statistical power and the inability to exclude unplanned home births. We compared the outcomes of planned home births attended by midwives with those of planned hospital births attended by midwives or physicians.

Methods: We included all planned home births attended by registered midwives from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2004, in British Columbia, Canada (n = 2889), and all planned hospital births meeting the eligibility requirements for home birth that were attended by the same cohort of midwives (n = 4752). We also included a matched sample of physician-attended planned hospital births (n = 5331). The primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality; secondary outcomes were obstetric interventions and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results: The rate of perinatal death per 1000 births was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–1.03) in the group of planned home births; the rate in the group of planned hospital births was 0.57 (95% CI 0.00–1.43) among women attended by a midwife and 0.64 (95% CI 0.00–1.56) among those attended by a physician. Women in the planned home-birth group were significantly less likely than those who planned a midwife-attended hospital birth to have obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.29–0.36; assisted vaginal delivery, RR 0.41, 95% 0.33–0.52) or adverse maternal outcomes (e.g., third- or fourth-degree perineal tear, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28–0.59; postpartum hemorrhage, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49–0.77). The findings were similar in the comparison with physician-assisted hospital births. Newborns in the home-birth group were less likely than those in the midwife- attended hospital-birth group to require resuscitation at birth (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14–0.37) or oxygen therapy beyond 24 hours (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24–0.59). The findings were similar in the comparison with newborns in the physician-assisted hospital births; in addition, newborns in the home-birth group were less likely to have meconium aspiration (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.93) and more likely to be admitted to hospital or readmitted if born in hospital (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09–1.85).
Interpretation: Planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician./p>

Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low-risk planned
home and hospital births.

de Jonge A, van der Goes B, Ravelli A, Amelink-Verburg M, Mol B, Nijhuis J, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J, Buitendijk S.
BJOG 2009; DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x.

Objective: To compare perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity between planned home and planned hospital births, among low-risk women who started their labour in primary care.

Design: A nationwide cohort study. Setting: The entire Netherlands.

Population: A total of 529, 688 low-risk women who were in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour. Of these, 321, 307 (60.7%) intended to give birth at home, 163, 261 (30.8%) planned to give birth in hospital and for 45, 120 (8.5%), the intended place of birth was unknown.
Methods: Analysis of national perinatal and neonatal registration data, over a period of 7 years. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics.

Main outcome measures: Intrapartum death, intrapartum and neonatal death within 24 hours after birth, intrapartum and
neonatal death within 7 days and neonatal admission to an intensive care unit.

Results: No significant differences were found between planned home and planned hospital birth (adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals: intrapartum death 0.97 (0.69 to 1.37), intrapartum death and neonatal death during the first 24 hours 1.02 (0.77 to 1.36), intrapartum death and neonatal death up to 7 days 1.00 (0.78 to 1.27), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 1.00 (0.86 to 1.16).

Conclusions: This study shows that planning a home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low-risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitates this choice through the availability of well- trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system.

office: 970-221-3496 © 2011 Carol Roedocker