The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. PARTICIPANTS: 64,538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and "booked" pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). RESULTS: There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women
Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub5 · Cited by 906
Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women
Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub4 · Cited by 514
The projected effect of scaling up midwifery
Homer, C. S. E., Friberg, I. K., Dias, M. A. B., ten Hoope-Bender, P., Sandall, J., Speciale, A. M., & Bartlett, L. A. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60790-x · Cited by 323
Sustaining quality midwifery care in a pandemic and beyond'
Renfrew, M. J., Cheyne, H., Craig, J., Duff, E., Dykes, F., Hunter, B., Lavender, T., Page, L., Ross-Davie, M., Spiby, H., et al. (2020) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2020.102759 · Cited by 127
Green, L., Knight, M., Seeney, F., Hopkinson, C., Collins, P., Collis, R., Simpson, N., Weeks, A., & Stanworth, S. (2016) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13831 · Cited by 117
Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review
Kennedy, K., Adelson, P., Fleet, J., Steen, M., McKellar, L., Eckert, M., & Peters, M. D. J. (2020) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2019.102589 · Cited by 50
Wernham, E., Gurney, J., Stanley, J., Ellison-Loschmann, L., & Sarfati, D. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002134 · Cited by 37
Donnellan-Fernandez, R. E., Creedy, D. K., & Callander, E. J. (2018) · Health Economics Review · doi:10.1186/s13561-018-0217-3 · Cited by 31
Challenging the status quo: Women's experiences of opting for a home birth in Andalucia, Spain
Leon-Larios, F., Nuno-Aguilar, C., Rocca-Ihenacho, L., Castro-Cardona, F., & Escuriet, R. (2019) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.12.001 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Birthplace in England Collaborative Group
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2011-11-23
- Volume
- 343
- Issue
- nov23 4
- Pages
- d7400-d7400
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1527434870
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 72.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.