|
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: 6/6/2007
© 2010 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 of maternity care through research, education, advocacy and policy. 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 : Health Professionals
New VBAC Guidlines
ACOG has just issued new Guidlines for VBAC. What changed? What continues?
We've Moved!
On July 1, 2010, the Childbirth Connection office moved to 260 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10016. All other contact information is unchanged.
"2020 Vision" and "Blueprint for Action" Reports Available
Collaboration of leaders from across the U.S. health care system contributed to two major direction-setting reports for improving the maternity care system.
Learn about Transforming Maternity Care project 
Read the "2020 Vision"
Read the "Blueprint for Action"
Help implement Blueprint recommendations
Listen to report release event audio, 1/2010
Rising Maternal Mortality
Analysis of maternal mortality data for the state of California, with 14% of the nation's births, strongly suggests that maternal mortality is increasing in tandem with rising rates of cesarean section and obesity.
Read article about maternal mortality in California
Read companion Q&A
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. View 2010 Supporter Roster
Updated Maternity Care Statistics Available
A fact sheet summarizes U.S. maternity care trends and figures from the latest federal reports. A new table updates state-level maternity statistics. These update background information in the 2008 Milbank Report on Evidence-Based Maternity Care.
Get the fact sheet
Get state-level statistics (PDF)
Read Evidence-Based
Maternity Care
US Cochrane Center (USCC)/Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE)
Visit the USCC/CUE website for the latest pregnancy and childbirth systematic reviews.
Evidence-Based Maternity Care Report Released
A major new report takes stock of the U.S. maternity care system and finds great opportunities for improvement. Childbirth Connection collaborated with the Reforming States Group and the Milbank Memorial Fund to develop the report.
Learn more, get the report
Read companion USA Today article
Read the USA Today article
Read the Consumer Reports story
Take the Consumer Reports quiz
Read Our Bodies Our Blog entry
New Mothers Speak Out National Report ReleasedThe latest report in Childbirth Connection's Listening to Mothers series is now available. Get an eye-opening look at the reality of life as a mother of young children in the United States, based on national surveys conducted by Harris Interactive. Learn more, get the report Read the Wall Street Journal story and listen to the podcast Download Quick Facts (PDF) Why does the national U.S. c-section rate keep going up?
Current research points to an optimal cesarean section rate of 5% to 10%, but 1 pregnant woman in 3 is giving birth by major surgery in the United States. Why the surge and is this safe? A new page - and a PDF handout for journalists, policy makers, students and others - answer these questions. Read more about the rising cesarean section rate
New Content!
March/April 2009 evidence column is now available. Features: National Quality Forum endorses consensus perinatal performance measures; systematic reviews on induction of labor, environmental tobacco smoke and fetal health, and HPV infection and cervical neoplasia Get the column
Popular Pages
Comfort in Labor, by Penny Simkin
Penny
Simkin, the internationally recognized leader in childbirth education
and labor support, shares her wisdom with women, including comfort
measures, effective positions, and tips for partners and doulas. Download Comfort in Labor (free PDF) 
Every woman and infant has the right to receive care that is consistent with current scientific evidence about benefits and risks. Practices that have been found to be safe and beneficial should be used when indicated. Harmful, ineffective, or unnecessary practices should be avoided. Unproven interventions should be used only in the context of research to evaluate their effects.
|
