Journal article
Perinatal and maternal outcomes in planned home and obstetric unit births in women at 'higher risk' of complications: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study.
- Abstract:
-
Objective
To explore and compare perinatal and maternal outcomes in women at ‘higher risk’ of complications planning home versus obstetric unit (OU) birth.
Design
Prospective cohort study
Setting
OUs and planned home births in England
Population
8180 ‘higher risk’ women in the Birthplace cohort.
Methods
We used Poisson regression to calculate relative risks adjusted for maternal characteristics. Sensitivity analyses explored possible effects of differences in risk between groups and alternative outcome measures.
Main outcome measures
Composite perinatal outcome measure encompassing ‘intrapartum related mortality and morbidity’ (intrapartum stillbirth, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus or clavicle) and neonatal admission within 48 hours for more than 48 hours. Two composite maternal outcome measures capturing intrapartum interventions/adverse maternal outcomes and straightforward birth.
Results
The risk of ‘intrapartum related mortality and morbidity’ or neonatal admission for more than 48 hours was lower in planned home births than planned OU births [adjusted relative risks (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.31–0.81]. Adjustment for clinical risk factors did not materially affect this finding. The direction of effect was reversed for the more restricted outcome measure ‘intrapartum related mortality and morbidity’ (RR adjusted for parity 1.92, 95% CI 0.97–3.80). Maternal interventions were lower in planned home births.
Conclusions
The babies of ‘higher risk’ women who plan birth in an OU appear more likely to be admitted to neonatal care than those whose mothers plan birth at home, but it is unclear if this reflects a real difference in morbidity. Rates of intrapartum related morbidity and mortality did not differ statistically significantly between settings at the 5% level but a larger study would be required to rule out a clinically important difference between the groups.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 127.7KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1111/1471-0528.13283
Authors
- Publisher:
- Wiley
- Journal:
- BJOG More from this journal
- Volume:
- 122
- Issue:
- 5
- Pages:
- 741-753
- Publication date:
- 2015-01-21
- Acceptance date:
- 2014-11-17
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1471-0528
- ISSN:
-
1470-0328
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:504954
- UUID:
-
uuid:0b3ae325-6bb1-4c0b-bbad-5eef9487d9aa
- Local pid:
-
pubs:504954
- Source identifiers:
-
504954
- Deposit date:
-
2016-04-07
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Knight et al
- Copyright date:
- 2015
- Notes:
- © 2015 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record