|
Best Evidence for Choosing A Place of Birth
Best evidence:
When making important maternity decisions, women should have
information from the best available research about the safety and
effectiveness of different choices. In general, we can be most
confident about results of systematic reviews that summarize randomized
controlled trials (or RCTs, a type of study).
Unfortunately,
for many decisions, we must rely on less definitive research; and many
important questions - even in the case of widely used drugs, tests, and
procedures - have hardly been studied at all. Although this situation
is discouraging, an awareness of weak or missing evidence can help you
make more informed choices about care.
What is the bottom line for choosing a place of birth?
What is the best evidence about advantages and disadvantages of different types of places of giving birth available in the U.S.?
What factors regarding the place of birth most contribute to women's satisfaction in childbirth?
Neither
systematic reviews nor randomized controlled trials are available to
compare the relative safety and effectiveness of birth in hospitals
with other alternatives in U.S. settings. (The sole exception is a
systematic review of observational (less definitive design) research of
home versus hospital birth, which includes two U.S. studies.) Because
death of mothers and babies is a rare event, requiring very large
studies to detect differences, the best available research does not
clarify whether hospital or other places of birth might be safer from
this perspective for well, low-risk women and their babies. At the
present time, we do not have evidence that hospital care offers clear
safety benefits for low-risk childbearing families, and studies
consistently find that it involves higher rates of intervention than
other settings. Places of birth that limit routine use of interventions with
low-risk women appear to be more consistent with the best evidence
about common interventions.
Despite this overall pattern,
specific care environments vary. Characteristics of an individual place of birth, including the attitudes and style of caregivers in that
place of birth, have a major impact on the type of care that a woman receives.
This
information summarizes the best available evidence about the
comparative safety and effectiveness of the following places of birth: hospital, in-hospital "birth center", out of-hospital
(freestanding) birth center, and home.
Hospital birth center care compared to usual hospital care.
One
systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration (Hodnett 2004)
compares usual hospital settings for birth to hospital birth centers.
It summarizes data from nearly 8,000 women in five randomized
controlled trials. Unfortunately, the studies are from Europe and
Canada, and the reviewer found no relevant high-quality controlled
trials from the U.S., which may not be similar. The pooled evidence
about home-like settings finds that they involve less use of pain
medications, less use of medication to stimulate labor (pitocin),
greater mobility in labor, fewer fetal heart abnormalities, and greater
satisfaction with care. The babies' rates of death during labor or in
the first four weeks after birth were higher, but not statistically
different, in the total group using homelike care.
A much
earlier study examining care in 25 U.S. in-hospital birth centers
(DeVries 1983) found a vague understanding of characteristics
distinguishing the birth center from usual hospital care, low levels of
administrative and staff support for the alternative birth center
concept, and many restrictions on participation. This study may not
reflect current conditions in the U.S.
Out-of-hospital birth center care compared to usual hospital care.
For
a Cochrane systematic review, Hodnett (2004) looked for, but did not
find, any randomized controlled trials comparing care in
out-of-hospital birth centers to usual hospital care.
The
(U.S.) National Birth Center Study (Rooks and colleagues 1989, 1992a,
1992b, 1992c; Fullerton and Severino 1992) of nearly 12,000 women
receiving care in 84 out-of-hospital birth centers, is the largest and
most complete source of information about this type of care. As with
many smaller studies, the national study found that the birth center
group experienced low rates of invasive procedures and restrictions,
when compared to similar women in hospitals. One woman in six
transferred to hospital care after beginning labor, but just one woman
in 42 transferred to hospital care under emergency circumstances. No
mothers died. When compared with large studies of low-risk women in
hospitals, the birth center group:
- was half as likely to have a cesarean section
- had a similar rate of death of babies after 20 weeks of pregnancy or in the first four weeks after birth.
Non-hospital birth center care compared to hospital-sponsored birth center care.
The
National Survey of Women's Health Centers, conducted in 1994, provides
an opportunity to compare 37 non-hospital birth centers with 32
hospital-sponsored birth centers in the U.S. (Khoury and colleagues
1997). Most hospital-sponsored centers were physically located in the
hospital. Compared to the hospital-sponsored centers, non-hospital
centers were more likely to
- be led by a midwife
- employ midwives and emphasize woman-provided care
- provide a broader range of services
- be accredited by the National Association of Childbearing Centers
- emphasize shared decision-making between women and caregivers
- emphasize women's empowerment and express a feminist ideology.
The
non-hospital centers were less likely to view the center as a way to
attract women to the sponsoring organization and to aggressively market
their services. This national survey did not examine specific maternity
practices and health outcomes.
Home birth compared to hospital birth.
One
systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration (Olsen and Jewell
2004) found just one randomized controlled trial comparing home to
hospital birth. That study showed that women could be randomized to
home birth, but included too few women to interpret the results.
Another
review pools the experiences of over 24,000 women from six controlled
observational studies comparing planned home birth with modern hospital
back-up to planned hospital birth (Olsen 1997). Observational study
designs are less definitive than controlled trials. Two of the six
included studies were done in the U.S. The pooled home and hospital
groups had a similar rate of death for babies after 20 weeks of
pregnancy or in the first four weeks after birth. No maternal deaths
occurred in either group. The following outcomes favored the home birth
group:
- fewer low Apgar scores (rating newborn well-being)
- fewer severe tears in the mother's perineum (tissue around the opening of the vagina).
Because
of important differences in conditions of the studies, the reviewer did
not pool data on rates of interventions. Individual included studies
found that women in the hospital groups had higher rates of
artificially induced labor, artificially stimulated labor, episiotomy,
cesarean section, use of forceps or vacuum extractor, and other
interventions.
The author concludes that (1) no good evidence
exists to support the view that planned home birth with an experienced
caregiver and hospital back-up is less safe than planned hospital
birth, and (2) planned home birth may have advantages.
In
choosing your place of birth, it may be helpful to consider results of
research about satisfaction in childbirth. A systematic review of the
best available research (Hodnett 2002) finds that the following four
factors make the greatest contribution to women's satisfaction in
childbirth:
- having good support from caregivers
- having a high-quality relationship with caregivers
- being involved in decision-making about care
- having better-than-expected experiences (or having high expectations).
Choosing a place of birth where you can receive this type of care make a big difference in your satisfaction!
References
DeVries RG. Image and reality: an evaluation of hospital alternative birth centers. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 28,3 (1983) 3-9.
Fullerton
JT and Severino R. In-hospital care for low-risk childbirth: comparison
with results from the National Birth Center Study. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 37,5 (1992) 331-40.
Hodnett ED. Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 186,5 (2002) S160-72.
Khoury AJ, Summers L and Weisman CS. Characteristics of current hospital-sponsored and nonhospital birth centers. Maternal and Child Health Journal 1,2 (1997) 89-99.
Olsen O. Meta-analysis of the safety of home birth. Birth 24,1 (1997) 4-13.
Olsen O and Jewell MD. Home versus hospital birth (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rooks JP and colleagues. Outcomes of care in care in birth centers: the National Birth Center Study. New England Journal of Medicine 321,26 (December 29, 1989) 1804-1811. [See also: "Birth-day choices" editorial in the same issue.]
Rooks JP and colleagues. The National Birth Center Study. Part I. Methodology and prenatal care and referrals. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 37,4 (1992a) 222-53.
Rooks JP and colleagues. The National Birth Center Study. Part II. Intrapartum and immediate postpartum and neonatal care. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 37,5 (1992b) 301-30.
Rooks
JP and colleagues. The National Birth Center Study. Part III.
Intrapartum and immediate postpartum and neonatal complications and
transfers, postpartum and neonatal care, outcomes, and client
satisfaction. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 37,6 (1992c) 361-97.
Most recent page update: 11/16/2012
© 2013 Childbirth Connection. All rights reserved.
Childbirth Connection is a national not-for-profit organization founded in 1918 as Maternity Center Association. Our mission is to improve the quality and value of maternity care through consumer engagement and health system transformation. Childbirth Connection promotes safe, effective and satisfying evidence-based maternity care and is a voice for the needs and interests of childbearing families.
|
News and Features
Listening to MothersSM III is the third national
survey exploring women’s experiences in pregnancy and childbirth.
Commissioned by Childbirth Connection, conducted by Harris Interactive, and
funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the survey polled 2,400 women who gave
birth in U.S. hospitals from 2011 to 2012. Results show that medically
intensive experiences are typical, and evidence-based practices are
underutilized. Childbearing women need better support and knowledge to
navigate their maternity care.
Access the full report and supplementary materials  New Report: Maternity Care and
LiabilityGo to
report and supporting materials New Report: The Cost of Having a Baby in the United
StatesGo to report
and supporting materials New Cesarean Resources:Go to Best Evidence Report Go to web pages and booklet for women 
For 95 years, Childbirth Connection has been dedicated to improving the
quality and value of maternity care for all women and their families. Learn
more about our rich history through our interactive
timeline and give
$95 for 95 in honor of
our 95th birthday.
Childbirth Connection works to ensure that all women and babies get the best
possible maternity care. We have the collective vision and we know how to get
there, but we can't do it alone. Join the transformation
today.
Help Transform Maternity Care!
 Please join our efforts to make quality
maternity care a top national priority. Your support will help make the
transformation possible.
|
