Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Planned home compared with planned hospital births: mode of delivery and Perinatal mortality rates, an observational study

  • Jacoba van der Kooy1Email author,
  • Erwin Birnie2, 4,
  • Semiha Denktas1,
  • Eric A.P Steegers1 and
  • Gouke J. Bonsel3, 4
BMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:177

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1348-y

Received: 20 October 2015

Accepted: 25 May 2017

Published: 8 June 2017

Abstract

Background

To compare the mode of delivery between planned home versus planned hospital births and to determine if differences in intervention rates could be interpreted as over- or undertreatment.

Methods

Intervention and perinatal mortality rates were obtained for 679,952 low-risk women from the Dutch Perinatal Registry (2000–2007). Intervention was defined as operative vaginal delivery and/or caesarean section. Perinatal mortality was defined as the intrapartum and early neonatal mortality rate up to 7 days postpartum.

Besides adjustment for maternal and care factors, we included for additional casemix adjustment: presence of congenital abnormality, small for gestational age, preterm birth, or low Apgar score. The techniques used were nested multiple stepwise logistic regression, and stratified analysis for separate risk groups. An intention-to-treat like analysis was performed.

Results

The intervention rate was lower in planned home compared to planned hospital births (10.9% 95% CI 10.8–11.0 vs. 13.8% 95% CI 13.6–13.9). Intended place of birth had significant impact on the likelihood to intervene after adjustment (planned homebirth (OR 0.77 95% CI. 0.75–0.78)).

The mortality rate was lower in planned home births (0.15% vs. 0.18%). After adjustment, the interaction term home- intervention was significant (OR1.51 95% CI 1.25–1.84). In risk groups, a higher perinatal mortality rate was observed in planned home births.

Conclusions

The potential presence of over- or under treatment as expressed by adjusted perinatal mortality differs per risk group. In planned home births especially multiparous women showed universally lower intervention rates. However, the benefit of substantially fewer interventions in the planned home group seems to be counterbalanced by substantially increased mortality if intervention occurs.

Keywords

Intervention Mortality Perinatal care

Background

The challenge of obstetric care is to optimize maternal and child health outcomes and the mother’s experience of childbirth with the least possible interventions in the normal process [1]. This challenge has led to a wide debate in recent years about relative benefits and risks of birth in different settings and the associated risk of medical interventions [212].

In the Netherlands, approximately 50% of pregnant women start their delivery in primary care under the supervision of a community midwife. Community midwives are independent health care professionals working either solely or in group practices [13] who provide care for low risk and medium risk pregnant women according to Dutch guidelines [14]. Only low risk women can choose their birthplace: at home or in the hospital, both supervised by the community midwife only.

The debate on different birth settings in the Netherland has intensified since the national perinatal mortality rate showed to be one of the highest in Europe, although the difference in perinatal mortality mainly occurs in preterm births [15, 16]. While the proportion of home birth deliveries in the Netherlands has steadily decreased to 17% of all births [17], several high income countries consider the reintroduction of home births [1820]. This is based on claims of equal safety at lower intervention rates compared to hospital births where overtreatment might be present [20, 21]. Furthermore it is based on the stated reduction of maternal-fetal morbidity and suggested psychosocial advantages for the mother [2, 6, 7, 911]. These benefits may be counterbalanced by the disadvantages associated with delayed treatment or even undertreatment in planned home births leading to an increased risk of perinatal mortality, morbidity and long term adverse effects [20, 22, 23]. Studies addressing the benefits and disadvantages of home birth can be challenged due to their observational study design with insufficient casemix adjustment for interventions and outcomes, and exclusion of women from the analysis, which according to the delivery guidelines should have been referred prior to delivery [2, 611]. This paper compares the intervention rates between planned home and planned hospital births, and determines whether these can be interpreted as over- or undertreatment by comparing adjusted perinatal mortality rates.

Methods

Data

The Netherlands Perinatal Registry (PRN) contains population-based information of 96% of all pregnancies in The Netherlands. Source data are collected by 95% of midwives, 99% of gynecologists and 68% of pediatricians (including 100% of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit pediatricians) [15, 24]. (See https://www.perined.nl for details.) The PRN does not include long term child outcomes. Detailed information on risk factors is only partially available in the PRN registry.

Included were the records of all singleton pregnant women (693,592 women) who at the onset of labor (spontaneous contractions or spontaneous rupture of membranes) were supervised by community midwives between 2000 and 2007.

Excluded were 13,384 women with so called ‘medium risk’, e.g. women with a history of postpartum hemorrhage or obesity, since Dutch guidelines prescribe a hospital delivery with their midwife-led delivery (no choice of planned home birth). Secondly, 256 incomplete data records were excluded. The remaining 679,952 women were categorized according to intended place of birth (home/hospital/unknown (place was undecided/not recorded)).

Determinants

Maternal determinants were parity (nulliparous/multiparous), age, ethnicity (Western/non-Western; based on a more refined classification in the registry), and living in a deprived neighbourhood (yes/no, based on 4-digit zip-codes and a public list of zip-code based deprived, neighborhoods issued by the Dutch government) [25]. Health care related determinants were time of birth (day 8.00–18.00, night 18.00–8.00), day of birth (week day, weekend) and receiving an intervention (yes/no).

Outcome measures

Two primary outcomes were defined. First, receiving an intrapartum intervention during delivery (including operative vaginal delivery and/or secondary caesarean section). Second, perinatal mortality, which was defined as the intrapartum and early neonatal mortality up to 7 days postpartum.

Casemix adjustment

Casemix of any defined group of women was primarily represented by the prevalence of Big4 conditions (see below) selected as most important risk mediators. The presence of any of the four conditions is known to precede perinatal mortality in 85% of cases (PRN dataset, years 2000–2007, 1.25 million records) [26]. These four child conditions are; congenital abnormalities (list defined), intrauterine growth restriction (SGA, birthweight below the 10th percentile for gestational age, gender and parity specific), preterm birth (<37th week of gestation) or low Apgar score (<7, measured 5 min after birth) [26]. We refer to these four conditions as the Big4. In the current analysis Big4 represent an objective estimate of the risk load at birth and therefore it is used for casemix adjustment in this context. In a system with optimal risk selection Big4 conditions should not occur in the low risk population giving birth under the supervision of a community midwife. However, since risk selection is not optimal in the Dutch obstetric care system Big4 conditions are still present in this group.

Casemix adjustment is different for the intervention outcome (an intrapartum measurement) and mortality outcome (a postpartum measurement). When comparing mortality rates Big4 casemix adjustment is used. However, when comparing intervention rates, the intervention precedes the outcome low Apgar score. Low Apgar should therefore be excluded from the Big4. This is referred as Big3 adjustment.

Statistical analysis

Firstly, we compared characteristics of the population by intended place of birth using Student’s t-tests for continuous variables with normal distributions and chi-square tests for nominal or ordinal variables (Table 1). Secondly, the intervention rate was compared between planned home versus planned hospital births, after Big3 adjustment. The planned place of birth is routinely asked by the midwife at 30 weeks of gestation. An intention-to-treat-like analysis approach was used [27]. It is called intention-to-treat-like since intention-to-treat analysis is mainly used in RCT’s. The intention-to-treat-like analysis approach implies that all women who were able to plan a home or hospital birth were included (so women with so called ‘medium risk’ were excluded), independent from later referral during labor (denominator n = 679,952). For the statistical analysis we selected a nested multiple stepwise logistic regression (stepwise analysis; inclusion p < 0.05; exclusion p > 0.10). Model 1 gives the crude risk ratios. Model 2 gives the adjusted odds ratios, including maternal, child (casemix) and health care related determinants. Thirdly, we compared the perinatal mortality rates after Big4 adjustment using an intention-to-treat-like approach. For this analysis a nested multiple stepwise regression model (stepwise analysis; inclusion p < 0.05; exclusion p > 0.10) was used (model 1). Additionally we added receiving an intervention (yes/no) and its interaction with intended place of birth as an explaining determinant (model 2) [28].
Table 1

Characteristics and outcome of women in primary care at the onset of labour; intention-to-treat-like approacha

Variable

Planned home birth

Planned hospital birth

Planned place unknown

n

%

n

%

n

%

402,912

59%

219,105

32%

57,935

9%

Parity**

  

 Primiparous

171,986

42,7%

104,249

47,6%

26,254

45,3%

 Multiparous (REF)

230,926

57,3%

114,856

52,4%

31,681

54,7%

Maternal Age**

  < 19 years

4036

1,0%

6713

3,1%

1190

2,1%

 20–25 years

34,661

8,6%

32,617

14,9%

6823

11,8%

 25–34 years (REF)

296,128

73,5%

142,597

65,1%

39,526

68,2%

  > 35 years

68,087

16,9%

37,178

17,0%

10,396

17,9%

Ethnic background**

 Dutch (REF)

370,647

92,0%

153,572

70,1%

46,966

81,1%

 Non Dutch

32,265

8,0%

65,533

29,9%

10,969

18,9%

Neighbourhood**

      

 Privileged neighbourhood (REF)

388,089

96,3%

196,659

89,8%

53,823

92,9%

 Underprivileged neighbourhood

14,823

3,7%

22,446

10,2%

4112

7,1%

Gestational Age**

  < 34wk

2396

0,6%

1658

0,8%

567

1,0%

 35-36wk

6510

1,6%

4064

1,9%

1206

2,1%

 37wk

15,203

3,8%

9603

4,4%

2497

4,3%

 38-41wk (REF)

372,787

92,5%

200,872

91,7%

52,899

91,3%

  > 41 wk

6016

1,5%

2908

1,3%

766

1,3%

Big4**

 SGA

28,029

7,0%

18,288

8,3%

4364

7,5%

 Prematurity

8056

2,0%

5194

2,4%

1583

2,7%

 Low apgar

1642

0,4%

1171

0,5%

290

0,5%

 Congenital abnomality

4711

1,2%

2826

1,3%

759

1,3%

 Combination Big4

1895

0,5%

1326

0,6%

373

0,6%

 No Big4

358,579

89,0%

190,300

86,9%

50,566

87,3%

Time of delivery**

 Day 8.00–18.00 (REF)

167,345

41,5%

96,033

43,8%

24,674

42,6%

 Night 18.00–8.00

235,567

58,5%

123,072

56,2%

33,261

57,4%

Day of delivery**

 Weekend

109,761

27,2%

59,976

27,4%

15,553

26,8%

 Week day (REF)

293,151

72,8%

159,129

72,6%

42,382

73,2%

Interventions**

  

 Vacuum extraction/forceps

32,481

8,1%

20,404

9,3%

4630

8,0%

 Section cesarean

11,285

2,8%

9731

4,4%

2412

4,2%

 No vacuum/forceps or section cesarean

359,146

89,1%

188,970

86,2%

50,893

87,8%

Intrapartum & early neonatal death (7 days)**

 No

402,266

99,8%

218,672

99,8%

57,826

99,8%

 Yes

594

0,15%

403

0,18%

102

0,18%

REF reference group

aTotals may not add up to 100 because of rounding error

** p < 0,001 (home vs hospital vs unknown planned place of birth)

In both regression analyses hospital birth was set as reference. All stepwise analyses were repeated with a forward and backward approach. Results of the two approaches were similar unless stated otherwise. For the regression analysis risk factor coefficients were only shown if p < 0.05.

Fourthly, the presence of over- and undertreatment for predefined risk groups was assessed by stratifying the women into five predefined risk groups (noBig3, SGA, preterm birth, congenital anomaly, combination Big3) and parity (nulliparous/multiparous), altogether 10 groups. A comparison of unadjusted perinatal mortality rates was made by planned place of birth (home/hospital) and by receiving an intervention (yes/no). The presence of over- or undertreatment was assessed within each group separately by comparing the intervention and perinatal mortality rate. In general undertreatment was suspected if substantial lower intervention rates were present in planned home births compared to planned hospital births, while simultaneously the perinatal mortality rate was higher in planned home births. Overtreatment was suspected when substantial lower intervention rates were present in planned home births compared to planned hospital births, while the mortality rate was lower or equal in planned home births.

Technically, the difference in the intervention rate and the difference in the perinatal mortality rate were both expressed as risk ratios with hospital set as reference (dividing the rate in the planned home birth by rate in the planned hospital birth).

Eight different combinations of the intervention risk ratio and the perinatal mortality ratio were developed, which allowed for the interpretation of over- or undertreatment (Fig. 1). These eight patterns describe the relationship between (1) the risk ratio of an intervention, (2), the risk ratio of perinatal mortality in the intervened group, and (3) the risk ratio of perinatal mortality in the non-intervened group. Risk ratios larger than 1 were bolded.
Fig. 1

Differences in intervention rate and mortality rate between planned home and hospital births classified into eight patterns

The risk ratio of an intervention was subdivided into: I. A risk ratio slightly lower or equal to 1.0, indicated as (<1/=), representing a slightly lower tendency to intervene in the planned home birth; II. A risk ratio less than 1.0 (typically in the range 0.3–0.6) indicated as (<<), representing a considerable lower tendency to intervene in home deliveries.

The risk ratio of perinatal mortality was subdivided into: I. a risk ratio slightly lower or equal to 1.0, indicated as (<1/=), representing about equal or a slightly lower perinatal mortality in the planned home birth; II. a risk ratio more than 1.0, indicated as (>1), representing a considerable higher mortality in home deliveries.

In Fig.1 patterns 2 and 4 were suggestive for overtreatment, patterns 3, 5 and 6 were suggestive for undertreatment, patterns 7 and 8 were very suggestive for overtreatment, and for pattern 1 over- or undertreatment was not likely to be present. Note that the interpretation of pattern 1 and 2 rest on the assumption that residual confounding might still be present, leading to a favorable casemix in home deliveries.

Results

Table 1 describes the baseline characteristics of the intention-to-treat-like population (n = 679,952).

In the population who started birth under supervision of the community midwife about 59% of women planned a home birth, about 32% planned a hospital birth and 9% planned place of birth was unknown. Compared to women who planned birth in the hospital women with planned home birth were more likely to be multiparous, 25 years or older, of Dutch origin and living in a non-deprived neighbourhood. The prevalence of Big4 conditions was lower in planned home births (11.0%) compared to planned hospital births (13.1%) and planned place unknown (12.7%) (p < 0.001).

Interventions were less prevalent in planned home births (10.9%) compared to planned hospital births (13.7%) and to planned place unknown (12.2%) (p < 0.001). Intrapartum and neonatal mortality was 0.15% for planned home births, 0.18% for planned hospital births and 0.18% for planned place unknown (p < 0.001).

Intervention rates

The crude intervention risk ratio was significantly lower for women who planned home birth (RR 0.76, [95% CI 0.75–0.78, p < 0.001]) compared to those who planned a hospital birth (Table 2, Model 1). All maternal and child risk factors (except the presence of SGA), showed significant differences in RR in agreement with the expected direction.
Table 2

Intervention (operative vaginal delivery and caesarean section) in women who are in primary care at the onset of labour

 

TOTAL(n)

IV (N)

%

p

Model 1

 

p

Model 2

 

p

    

Crude RR

95% CI

 

Adj OR

 

95% CI

 

Intended place of birth

   

**

   

**

   

**

 Home

402,912

43,766

0,109

 

0,76

0,75

0,78

 

0,77

0,75

0,78

 

 Hospital (REF)

219,105

30,135

0,138

 

1

   

1

   

 Unknown

57,935

7042

0,122

 

0,87

0,84

0,89

 

0,86

0,84

0,89

 

Parity

   

**

   

**

   

**

 Primiparous

302,489

70,334

0,233

 

10,49

10,27

10,71

 

11,90

11,64

12,16

 

 Multiparous (REF)

377,463

10,609

0,028

 

1

   

1

   

Maternal Age

   

**

   

**

   

**

  < 19 years

11,939

1295

0,108

 

0,86

0,81

0,91

 

0,40

0,37

0,42

 

 20–25 years

74,101

8737

0,118

 

0,94

0,92

0,96

 

0,58

0,57

0,60

 

 25–34 years (REF)

478,251

59,536

0,124

 

1

   

1

   

  > 35 years

115,661

11,375

0,098

 

0,77

0,75

0,78

 

1,36

1,33

1,40

 

Ethnic background

   

**

   

**

   

**

 Dutch (REF)

571,185

69,983

0,123

 

1

   

1

   

 Non Dutch

108,767

10,960

0,101

 

0,80

0,79

0,82

 

0,96

0,94

0,99

 

Neighbourhood

   

**

   

**

   

**

 Privileged neighbourhood (REF)

638,571

76,646

0,120

 

1

   

1

   

 Underprivileged neighbourhood

41,381

4297

0,104

 

0,85

0,82

0,88

 

0,90

0,87

0,94

 

Gestational Age

   

**

   

**

   

**

  < 34wk

4621

873

0,189

 

1,90

1,76

2,04

 

1,02

0,94

1,10

 

 35-36wk

11,780

1926

0,163

 

1,48

1,41

1,55

 

0,96

0,91

1,01

 

 37wk

27,303

2701

0,099

 

0,83

0,80

0,86

 

0,63

0,61

0,66

 

 38-41wk (REF)

626,558

73,286

0,117

 

1

   

1

   

  > 41 wk

9690

2157

0,223

 

2,16

2,06

2,27

 

2,11

2,00

2,22

 

Big3

   

**

   

**

   

**

 SGA

50,681

5169

0,102

 

0,83

0,81

0,85

 

0,85

0,82

0,87

 

 Prematurity

16,401

2799

0,350

         

 Congenital abnomality

3594

904

0,252

 

1,86

1,76

1,97

 

1,77

1,67

1,88

 

 Combination Big3

2443

507

0,140

 

2,64

2,44

2,85

 

1,66

1,49

1,85

 

 No Big3

606,833

71,564

0,118

 

1

   

1

   

Time of delivery

       

**

   

**

 Day 8.00–18.00 (REF)

288,052

38,414

0,133

 

1

   

1

   

 Night 18.00–8.00

391,900

42,529

0,109

 

0,79

0,78

0,80

 

0,86

0,84

0,87

 

Day of delivery

       

**

    

 Week day (REF)

494,662

58,785

0,119

 

1

   

nie

   

 Weekend

185,290

22,158

0,120

 

1,01

0,99

1,02

     

Nie not in equation

Model 1: crude RR

Model 2: adjusted for maternal factors + child factors + health care factors

**p < 0,001

The adjusted intervention risk ratio is displayed in model 2. Consecutive adjustment for maternal, child (Big3 casemix) and health care related factors showed that the planned place of birth had a significant impact on the likelihood of intervention (OR 0.77, [95% CI. 0.75–0.78]) (Table 2, model 2). A similar patern was seen for the planned place unknown group.

Perinatal mortality

The crude mortality risk ratio was significantly lower for women who planned home birth (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.71–0.91], p < 0.001) compared to those who planned a hospital birth (Table 3, model 1). All maternal and child risk factors, except the presence of a single SGA, showed significant differences in risk ratio in agreement with the expected direction.
Table 3

Intrapartum and neonatal death 0–7 days in women who are in primary care at the onset of labour (intention-to-treat-like approach)

 

TOTAL(n)

mortality (n)

%

p

Model 1

 

p

Model 2

 

p

    

Crude RR

95% CI

 

Adj OR

 

95% CI

 

Intended place of birth

   

**

   

**

nie

   

 Home

402,912

646

0,16%

 

,80

,71

,91

     

 Hospital (REF)

219,105

433

0,20%

 

1,00

       

 Unknown

57,935

109

0,19%

 

,96

,77

1,19

     

Parity

   

**

   

**

nie

   

 Primiparous

302,489

667

0,22%

 

1,58

1,40

1,78

     

 Multiparous (REF)

377,463

521

0,14%

 

1

       

Maternal Age

   

**

   

**

   

**

  < 19 years

11,939

44

0,37%

 

2,43

1,78

3,32

 

1,79

1,26

2,54

 

 20–25 years

74,101

146

0,20%

 

1,24

1,03

1,49

 

0,99

0,80

1,21

 

 25–34 years (REF)

478,251

753

0,16%

 

1

   

1

   

  > 35 years

115,661

245

0,21%

 

1,38

1,19

1,60

 

1,50

1,28

1,76

 

Ethnic background

   

**

   

**

   

**

 Dutch (REF)

571,185

953

0,17%

 

1

   

1

   

 Non Dutch

108,767

235

0,22%

 

1,31

1,13

1,52

 

1,29

1,09

1,53

 

Neighbourhood

           

**

 Privileged neighbourhood (REF)

638,571

1113

0,17%

 

1

   

1,00

   

 Underprivileged neighbourhood

41,381

75

0,18%

 

1,02

0,80

1,30

 

0,70

0,53

0,93

 

Gestational Age

   

**

   

**

   

**

  < 34wk

4621

378

8,18%

 

87,01

76,10

99,48

 

27,71

22,58

34,01

 

 35-36wk

11,780

72

0,61%

 

5,73

4,43

7,41

 

2,35

1,75

3,17

 

 37wk

27,303

61

0,22%

 

2,12

1,61

2,79

 

2,04

1,55

2,69

 

 38-41wk (REF)

626,558

663

0,11%

 

1

   

1

   

  > 41 wk

9690

14

0,14%

 

1,39

0,80

2,40

 

1,15

0,66

2,00

 

Big4

   

**

       

**

 SGA

50,681

81

0,16%

 

0,96

0,76

1,21

 

2,45

1,92

3,12

 

 Low apgar

3103

111

3,58%

 

22,02

17,84

27,18

**

47,56

37,95

59,61

 

 Congenital abnomality

8296

90

1,08%

 

5,46

4,28

6,97

**

12,46

9,64

16,10

 

 Combination Big4

3594

420

11,69%

 

115,01

101,14

130,77

**

35,96

29,46

43,90

 

 No Big4

599,445

309

0,05%

 

1

   

1

   

Time of delivery

        

nie

nie

nie

 

 Day 8.00–18.00 (REF)

288,052

499

0,17%

 

1

       

 Night 18.00–8.00

391,900

689

0,18%

 

1,02

0,91

1,16

     

Day of delivery

        

nie

nie

nie

 

 Week day (REF)

494,662

841

0,17%

 

1

       

 Weekend

185,290

347

0,19%

 

1,12

0,98

1,28

     

Intervention*intended place of birth

            

 Home intervention

    

2,14

1,80

2,56

 

1,51

1,25

1,84

 

 Home no intervention

    

0,63

0,56

0,71

 

nie

   

 Hospital intervention

    

2,07

1,68

2,55

 

nie

   

 Hospital no intervention (REF)

    

1

   

1

   

 Unknown intervention

    

1,77

1,14

2,76

 

nie

   

 Unknown no intervention

    

1,00

0,80

1,25

 

nie

   

REF Referencenie = not in equation

Model 1: crude RR

Model 2: stepwise analysis

* p < 0,05 (categories of variables)

** p < 0,001(categories of variables)

After adjusting for maternal, child (Big4 casemix) and health care related factors respectively, the stepwise analysis showed that only the interaction term home x intervention was significant (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.25–1.84]). All other interaction terms (e.g. hospital x intervention) turned out to be non-significant.

Table 4 describes the perinatal mortality rates by intended place of birth and by those with/without intervention for the ten risk groups. The first line describes the noBig3 nulliparous group. The total group consists out of 242,184 women. 116,663 planned their birth at home and received no intervention and 35,179 planned their birth at home and received an intervention. Dividing the intervention rate of the planned home birth group (35,179/35,179 + 116,663) by the intervention rate of the planned hospital group results in the intervention risk ratio (RR = 0.95, column 14). In the planned home group who received no intervention, perinatal mortality occurred in 123 women. This results in a mortality rate of 0.11% in the no intervention group. Dividing the mortality rate of planned home birth by the mortality rate of the planned hospital group results in the mortality risk ratio in the no intervention group (R = (123/116,663)/(78/68,641) = 0.93, column 15).
Table 4

Intervention rate (operative vaginal delivery and caesarean section) and mortality (intrapartum and neonatal death 0-7 days post partum) subdivided into riskgroups, parity and place of delivery

  

No Intervention group

Intervention Group

 

Total

N

Mortality*

Mortality Rate

N

Mortality*

Mortality Rate

Interven tion rate ratio**

Mortali Ty Rate Ratio No Interven Tion Group***

Mortali Ty Rate Ratio Interven Tion Group****

Pattern

Home + Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home

Hospital

Home vs hospital

Home Vs Hospital

Home Vs Hospital

1

NOBIG3

P0

242,184

116,663

68,641

123

78

0,11%

0,11%

35,179

21,701

63

52

0,18%

0,24%

0,95

0,93

0,75

4

 

P1

310,398

205,324

96,889

127

74

0,06%

0,08%

3582

4603

27

14

0,75%

0,30%

0,37

0,81

2,48

3

SGA

P0

20,071

9186

6799

16

13

0,17%

0,19%

2335

1751

13

5

0,56%

0,29%

0,99

0,91

1,95

8

 

P1

26,187

16,188

9377

16

7

0,10%

0,07%

281

341

3

1

1,07%

0,29%

0,48

1,32

3,64

3

PREMATURE BIRTH

P0

8752

4366

2582

41

36

0,94%

1,39%

1088

716

6

1

0,55%

0,14%

0,90

0,67

3,95

2

 

P1

4278

2339c

1592

18

30

0,77%

1,88%

152

195

3

4

1,97%

2,05%

0,53

0,41

0,96

7

CONGENITAL ANOMALY

P0

3785

1511

957

12

6

0,79%

0,63%

815

502

9

5

1,10%

1,00%

1,03

1,27

1,11

4

 

P1

3740

2300

1253

20

11

0,87%

0,88%

78

109

1

1

1,28%

0,92%

0,39

0,99

1,40

1

COMBINATION BIG3

P0

1134

487

318

34

23

6,98%

7,23%

186

143

10

10

5,38%

6,99%

0,85

0,97

0,77

8

 

P1

912

487

314

46

29

9,45%

9,24%

54

57

6

3

11,11%

5,26%

0,61

1,02

2,11

 

COLUMN

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

*mortality is defined as intrapartum and neonatal death (0-7 days post partum)

**intervention rate home / intervention rate hospital

***perinatal mortality rate home (no intervention) / perinatal mortality rate hospital (no intervention)

****perinatal mortality rate home (intervention) / perinatal mortality rate hospital (intervention)

P0= nulliparous, P1=multiparous

P0= nulliparous, P1=multiparous

Relatively high mortality rates were seen within in the primiparous with a Big3 combination (6.8%, home and hospital data combined, data not shown) and multiparous women (9.2%, home and hospital data combined, data not shown). The intervention rate was lower for women who planned a home birth, except for congenital anomalies in primiparous women (RR =1.03).

Grouping the intervention risk ratios into various risk groups, we observed the patterns as depicted in Table 4.

The primiparous NoBig3 (pattern 1) accounts for 39% of all deliveries, and the multiparous NoBig3 group (pattern 4) accounts for 50% of all deliveries, the remaining risk groups for 11%.

Discussion

Main findings

In this study the adjusted intervention rate in multiparous women with a planned home birth was lower compared to women with a planned hospital birth. We cannot provide a judgement on the presence of over- and undertreatment in general, but in some specific risk groups undertreatment at home may be present. Overtreatment in the hospital might be present in the noBig3 multiparous women. However, the benefit of substantially fewer interventions in the planned home group seems to be counterbalanced by substantially increased mortality if intervention occurs.

The most important observation seems that Big3 pregnancies at home show a mortality disadvantage, suggesting undertreatment through delayed timing of intervention or a too high threshold for intervention. One important source of delay is travel time from home to the hospital. Amelink et al. found that 0.4% of all low risk pregnancies need urgent referral. In the Netherlands, average time to the nearest hospital is about 13 min (ranging from 0 to 60 min). They concluded that the net travel time from home to hospital of 20 min or more by car is associated with an increased risk of mortality and adverse outcomes in term women [29]. Moreover, Ravelli et al. found that delivery at 37 weeks or 41 weeks of gestation in combination with travelling time increased the risk of mortality even further [30]. A second source of delay is the delay of the referral decision as suggested by Evers [22]. They observed a more than 3.5-fold higher perinatal death rate in infants of women who were referred from primary to secondary care during labor compared with infants of women who started labor in secondary care.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this study was the size and completeness of the study population, covering the complete Dutch births from 2000 to 2007. The amount of missing data was negligible and mortality data have been shown to be complete. Annual trends in the studied relations were absent, except for a minimal gradual decrease in total perinatal mortality [15].

Our casemix adjustment turned out to be essential. We previously showed that, within the low risk group of midwife led deliveries, unequal prevalence of Big4 conditions is present in planned home versus hospital births. This suggests an unequal risk load at the onset of childbirth since, either due to self-selection or due to the midwife’s proposal, the healthiest and most affluent women are more likely to undertake a home birth. Without adjusting for this, one introduces confounding by indication bias [26].

Another strength was the inclusion of women who according to delivery guidelines should have been referred to the obstetrician before the onset of labor, but were not recognized as such in the antenatal phase as health care performance during labor should include the performance of care during the preceding antenatal phase in terms of distinguishing between low and high risk [26].

Several limitations merit discussion. Firstly, an RCT would theoretically be the superior design to address our research question. However the only RCT on home versus hospital birth resulted in low participation rates and selective participation [31]. Treatment groups composed on the basis of women’s preference for setting is likely to affect outcome, producing biased estimates of setting effects. Hence an RCT design is unfeasible within our obstetric system [3133]. As next-best option, we applied casemix adjustment to the extent the data permitted. We assume Big4 adjustment corrects for the major risk differences at the time of birth. It does not adjust for unmeasured risk differences associated with the remaining 15% of perinatal deaths which are unrelated to the Big4. If we assume these risks follow the same pattern associated with the ‘healthy home birth’, our adjustment is still conservative. Secondly, long term child outcomes in terms of e.g. psychomotor development and behavioral function are needed to confirm whether they parallel the mortality pattern. Thirdly, few data are available on the precise clinical assessment leading to referral or intervention which would allow for better judgement on setting-dependent over- or undertreatment in our analysis. Lastly, our study is also limited in that only intervention rate and mortality are used as outcome indicators, ignoring the mother’s experience. However, studies addressing the trade-off between intervention consequences for the mother (e.g. caesarean section) versus safety of the child clearly indicate that even small advantages to the child’s outcome outweigh the consequences of an intervention [34].

Our results appear compatible with most of the few available reports on this issue. Previous studies on planned home births attended by registered community midwives confirm the lower risk of receiving an intervention and suggest equal mortality [212]. However these studies are limited by lack of applying complete casemix adjustment, thereby suggesting risk equivalence of home and hospital groups [2, 3, 612], afterwards exclusion of unplanned and unsuitable home births from analysis. [2, 68, 10, 11], voluntary submission of data [2, 68, 10, 11], or lack of statistical power [2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11]. These limitations generally tend to benefit outcome in favor of home birth. Sofar, none of these studies has performed a case fatality analysis based on predefined risk groups. The birthplace in England Collaborative Group concluded from their subgroup analysis fewer interventions in planned homebirths compared to planned hospital births, associated with an increased incidence of the adverse perinatal outcome for nulliparous women. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in adverse perinatal outcome [4, 20].

Women with an unknown place of birth tend to have similar characteristics as women planning their birth in the hospital. More detailed research should be done to this group.

Conclusion

The planned place of birth impacts the intervention rate in an assumed low risk population. In planned home births especially multiparous women showed universally lower intervention rates. However, the benefit of substantially fewer interventions in the planned home group seems to be counterbalanced by substantially increased mortality if intervention occurs. If risk selection can be improved both in terms of detection and timely referral, multiparous women could experience benefits from the non-medical setting. A perinatal mortality disadvantage of the home setting can be observed in undetected risk groups. More research should be done on the precise clinical assessment leading to referral or intervention which would allow for better judgement on setting-dependent over- or undertreatment. This study helps policy makers to gain a more balanced view in the discussion regarding advantages and disadvantages of the different places of birth.

Abbreviations

PRN: 

Netherlands Perinatal Registry

SGA: 

Small for Gestational Age

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The Netherlands Perinatal Registry, Utrecht, the Netherlands, kindly provided permission for the data analyses involved.

Authors’ contribution

EAPS, SD and GJB were coordinators and guarantors of the study. GJB, EB and JK designed the study. JK and EB conducted the study (collected data and analyzed data). All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

No funding.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available since they belong to the PRN.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The retrospective use of anonymized medical records exempted institutional review of the Medical Ethics Committee. This complies with national guidelines (http://www.ccmo.nl/nl/ccmo).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics & Prenatal Medicine
(2)
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam
(3)
University of Applied Sciences, Midwifery Academy Rotterdam (Verloskunde Academie Rotterdam)
(4)
Academic Collaboration Mother and Child Care, Wilhelmina Child Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht

References

  1. World Health Organisation MaNHCSMU. Care in Normal Birth: a practical guide. Geneva. Switzerland: WHO/TRH/MSM/9624; 1996.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann-Liebrich U, Voegeli T, Gunter-Witt K, Kunz I, Zullig M, Schindler C, et al. Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. Zurich study team. BMJ. 1996;313(7068):1313–8.Google Scholar
  3. Bolten N, de Jonge A, Zwagerman E, Zwagerman P, Klomp T, Zwart JJ, et al. Effect of planned place of birth on obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women: a cohort study in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):329.Google Scholar
  4. Hollowell J, Rowe R, Townend J, Knight M, Li Y, Linsell L, Redshaw M, Brocklehurst P, Macfarlane A, Marlow N, et al. The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study: further analyses to enhance policy and service delivery decision-making for planned place of birth. NIHR Journals Library; 2015. ISSN: 2050-4349;2050-4357 (Electronic).Google Scholar
  5. Hutton EK, Cappelletti A, Reitsma AH, Simioni J, Horne J, McGregor C, et al. Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies. CMAJ. 2016;188(5):E80–90.Google Scholar
  6. Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth. 2009;36(3):180–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ. 2009;181(6–7):377–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson KC, Daviss BA. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ. 2005;330(7505):1416.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Lindgren HE, Radestad IJ, Christensson K, Hildingsson IM. Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(7):751–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Olsen O. Meta-analysis of the safety of home birth. Birth. 1997;24(1):4–13. discussion 14–16View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, van der Zee J, Berghs GA. Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in The Netherlands. BMJ. 1996;313(7068):1309–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Wiegerinck MM, van der Goes BY, Ravelli AC, van der Post JA, Klinkert J, Brandenbarg J, et al. Intrapartum and neonatal mortality in primary midwife-led and secondary obstetrician-led care in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study. Midwifery. 2015;31(12):1168–76.Google Scholar
  13. Amelink-Verburg MP, Buitendijk SE. Pregnancy and labour in the Dutch maternity care system: what is normal? The role division between midwives and obstetricians. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(3):216–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. CVZ. CV: List of Obstetric Indications (in Dutch: Verloskundig Vademecum) 2003. Diemen. (http://www.knov.nl/fms/file/knov.nl/knov_downloads/769/file/Verloskundig%20Vademecum%202003.pdf?download_category=richtlijnen-praktijkkaarten); 2003.
  15. Ravelli AC, Tromp M, van Huis M, Steegers EA, Tamminga P, Eskes M, et al. Decreasing perinatal mortality in The Netherlands, 2000–2006: a record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(9):761–5.Google Scholar
  16. de Jonge A, Baron R, Westerneng M, Twisk J, Hutton EK. Perinatal mortality rate in the Netherlands compared to other European countries: a secondary analysis of euro-PERISTAT data. Midwifery. 2013;29(8):1011–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nederland SPR: Perintale Zorg in Nederland 2010. Utrecht: 2012..Google Scholar
  18. MacDorman MF, Declercq E. Trends and characteristics of United States out-of-hospital births 2004–2014: new information on risk status and access to care. Birth. 2016;43(2):116–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. MacDorman MF, Matthews TJ, Declercq E. Trends in out-of-hospital births in the United States. NCHS Data Brief. 1990–2012;2014(144):1–8.Google Scholar
  20. Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C, et al. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. Brit med J. 2011;343Google Scholar
  21. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/Royal College of Midwives. Home births. Joint statement No.2; 2007 (online: https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/home_births_rcog_rcm0607.pdf).
  22. Evers AC, Brouwers HA, Hukkelhoven CW, Nikkels PG, Boon J, van Egmond-Linden A, et al. Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity in low and high risk term pregnancies in the Netherlands: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341:c5639.Google Scholar
  23. Mori R, Dougherty M, Whittle M. An estimation of intrapartum-related perinatal mortality rates for booked home births in England and Wales between 1994 and 2003. BJOG. 2008;115(5):554–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nederland SPR. Perintale Zorg in Nederland 2008. Utrecht: 2011. (Online available at: https://assets.perined.nl/docs/cfbcb761-07d4-424e-b1ee-79382b7183ba.pdf).
  25. Environment. MoIat: Geographic distribution of deprived neighbourhoods and their problems. Selection criteria for the determination of 40 deprived neighbourhoods. TheHague: VROM, 2007. (In Dutch) [Online available at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2007/09/26/beantwoording-kamervragen-wijkenselectie-onderzoeksrapport-ruimtelijke-concentratie-van-achterstanden-en-problemen-pdf.html.
  26. van der Kooy J, Poeran J, de Graaf JP, Birnie E, Denktass S, Steegers EA, et al. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1037–46.Google Scholar
  27. Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, et al. Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2015;350:h2445.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman DA. Statistical models: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. 2009;128Google Scholar
  29. Amelink-Verburg MP, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Hakkenberg RM, Veldhuijzen IM, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J, Buitendijk SE. Evaluation of 280,000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study. BJOG. 2008;115(5):570–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ravelli AC, Jager KJ, de Groot MH, Erwich JJ, Rijninks-van Driel GC, Tromp M, et al. Travel time from home to hospital and adverse perinatal outcomes in women at term in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2011;118(4):457–65.Google Scholar
  31. Hendrix M, Van Horck M, Moreta D, Nieman F, Nieuwenhuijze M, Severens J, et al. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. BJOG. 2009;116(4):537–42. discussion 542–534Google Scholar
  32. Dowswell T, Thornton JG, Hewison J, Lilford RJ, Raisler J, Macfarlane A, et al. Should there be a trial of home versus hospital delivery in the United Kingdom? BMJ. 1996;312(7033):753–7.Google Scholar
  33. Tyson H. Outcomes of 1001 midwife-attended home births in Toronto, 1983–1988. Birth. 1991;18(1):14–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Feasibility, Reliability, and Validity of Three Health-State Valuation Methods Using Multiple-Outcome Vignettes on Moderate-Risk Pregnancy at Term. Value Health. 2009;12(5):821–7.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017