Effect of planned place of birth on obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women: a cohort study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The use of interventions in childbirth has increased the past decades. There is concern that some women might receive more interventions than they really need. For low-risk women, midwife-led birth settings may be of importance as a counterbalance towards the increasing rate of interventions. The effect of planned place of birth on interventions in the Netherlands is not yet clear. This study aims to give insight into differences in obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes for planned home versus planned hospital birth among women in midwife-led care. METHODS: Women from twenty practices across the Netherlands were included in 2009 and 2010. Of these, 3495 were low-risk and in midwife-led care at the onset of labour. Information about planned place of birth and outcomes, including instrumental birth (caesarean section, vacuum or forceps birth), labour augmentation, episiotomy, oxytocin in third stage, postpartum haemorrhage >1000 ml and perineal damage, came from the national midwife-led care perinatal database, and a postpartum questionnaire. RESULTS: Women who planned home birth more often had spontaneous birth (nulliparous women aOR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.08-1.76, parous women aOR 2.29, 95 % CI 1.21-4.36) and less often episiotomy (nulliparous women aOR 0.73, 0.58-0.91, parous women aOR 0.47, 0.33-0.68) and use of oxytocin in the third stage (nulliparous women aOR 0.58, 0.42-0.80, parous women aOR 0.47, 0.37-0.60) compared to women who planned hospital birth. Nulliparous women more often had anal sphincter damage (aOR 1.75, 1.01-3.03), but the difference was not statistically significant if women who had caesarean sections were excluded. Parous women less often had labour augmentation (aOR 0.55, 0.36-0.82) and more often an intact perineum (aOR 1.65, 1.34-2.03). There were no differences in rates of vacuum/forceps birth, unplanned caesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage >1000 ml. CONCLUSIONS: Women who planned home birth were more likely to give birth spontaneously and had fewer medical interventions.

Pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood and the choice for birth setting: a secondary data-analysis of the DELIVER study.

BACKGROUND: In several developed countries women with a low risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth can make choices regarding place of birth. In the Netherlands, these women receive midwife-led care and can choose between a home or hospital birth. The declining rate of midwife-led home births alongside the recent debate on safety of home births in the Netherlands, however, suggest an association of choice of birth place with psychological factors related to safety and risk perception. In this study associations of pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood with (changes in) planned place of birth were explored in low risk women in midwife-led care until the start of labour. METHODS: Data (n = 2854 low risk women in midwife-led care at the onset of labour) were selected from the prospective multicenter DELIVER study. Women completed the Pregnancy Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R) to assess pregnancy related anxiety and the EuroQol-6D (EQ-6D) for an anxious and/or depressed mood. RESULTS: A high PRAQ-R score was associated with planned hospital birth in nulliparous (aOR 1.92; 95% CI 1.32-2.81) and parous women (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.55-2.80). An anxious or depressed mood was associated with planned hospital birth (aOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.20-2.08) and with being undecided (aOR 1.99; 95% CI 1.23-2.99) in parous women only. The majority of women did not change their planned place of birth. Changing from an initially planned home birth to a hospital birth later in pregnancy was, however, associated with becoming anxious or depressed after 35 weeks gestation in nulliparous women (aOR 4.17; 95% CI 1.35-12.89) and with pregnancy related anxiety at 20 weeks gestation in parous women (aOR 3.91; 95% CI 1.32-11.61). CONCLUSION: Low risk women who planned hospital birth (or who were undecided) more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood. Women who changed from home to hospital birth during pregnancy more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood in late pregnancy. Anxiety should be adequately addressed in the process of informed decision-making regarding planned place of birth in low risk women.

Exclusive breastfeeding after home versus hospital birth in primary midwifery care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding has short-term and long-term health benefits for mother and child. We evaluated in what way birthplace was associated with the rate of exclusive breastfeeding among low risk women who gave birth in midwife-led care and who had expressed the intention to breastfeed. METHODS: We used data from the DELIVER study, which includes pregnant women from twenty midwifery practices across the Netherlands between September 2009 and April 2011. We used data from two questionnaires: one in the third trimester (after 34 weeks) and one after the birth (median 39 days postpartum). Only women who indicated an intention to breastfeed were included in the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between birthplace and exclusive breastfeeding, adjusted for relevant confounders. RESULTS: The exclusive breastfeeding rate was 75.0% for the 547 women who gave birth at home, and 68.5% for the 165 women who gave birth in midwife-led care in hospital. The adjusted odds ratio for exclusive breastfeeding after a hospital birth compared to a home birth was 0.79 (95% CI 0.53-1.18). The most frequently reported reason for not breastfeeding at the time of completing the postpartum questionnaire was 'my baby was not drinking enough' (47%). CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, among low risk women who intended to breastfeed their baby, the breastfeeding success rate did not differ significantly between home and midwife-led hospital births. As breastfeeding has short-term and long-term health benefits for mother and child, women should receive adequate lactation support by healthcare workers during the critical postpartum period, regardless of the place where they give birth.

The use of episiotomy in a low-risk population in the Netherlands: a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: To examine the episiotomy incidence and determinants and outcomes associated with its use in primary care midwifery practices. METHODS: Secondary analysis of two prospective cohort studies (n = 3,404). RESULTS: The episiotomy incidence was 10.8 percent (20.9% for nulliparous and 6.3% for parous women). Episiotomy was associated with prolonged second stage of labor (adj. OR 12.09 [95% CI 6.0-24.2] for nulliparous and adj. OR 2.79 [1.7-4.6] for parous women) and hospital birth (adj. OR 1.75 [1.2-2.5] for parous women). Compared with episiotomy, perineal tears were associated with a lower rate of postpartum hemorrhage in parous women (adj. OR 0.58 [0.4-0.9]). Fewer women with perineal tears reported perineal discomfort (adj. OR 0.35 [0.2-0.6] for nulliparous and adj. OR 0.22 [0.1-0.3] for parous women). Among nulliparous women episiotomy was performed most frequently for prolonged second stage of labor (38.8%) and among parous women for history of episiotomy or prevention of major perineal trauma (21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of episiotomy is high compared with some low-risk settings in other Western countries. Episiotomy was associated with higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes. Restricted use of episiotomy is likely to be beneficial for women.

Work and workload of Dutch primary care midwives in 2010.

OBJECTIVE: to re-assess the work and workload of primary care midwives in the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: in the Netherlands most midwives work in primary care as independent practitioners in a midwifery practice with two or more colleagues. Each practice provides 24/7 care coverage through office hours and on-call hours of the midwives. In 2006 the results of a time registration project of primary care midwives were published as part of a 4-year monitor study. This time the registration project was repeated, albeit on a smaller scale, in 2010. METHOD: as part of a larger study (the Deliver study) all midwives working in 20 midwifery practices kept a time register 24 hours a day, for one week. They also filled out questionnaires about their background, work schedules and experiences of workload. A second component of this study collected data from all midwifery practices in the Netherlands and included questions about practice size (number of midwives and number of clients in the previous year). FINDINGS: in 2010, primary care midwives actually worked on an average 32.6 hours per week and approximately 67% of their working time (almost 22 hours per week) was spent on client-related activities. On an average a midwife was on-call for 39 hours a week and almost 13 of the 32.6 hours of work took place during on-call-hours. This means that the total hours that an average midwife was involved in her work (either actually working or on-call) was almost 59 hours a week. Compared to 2004 the number of hours an average midwife was actually working increased by 4 hours (from 29 to 32.6 hours) whereas the total number of hours an average midwife was involved with her work decreased by 6 hours (from 65 to 59 hours). In 2010, compared to 2001-2004, the midwives spent proportionally less time on direct client care (67% versus 73%), although in actual number of hours this did not change much (22 versus 21). In 2009 the average workload of a midwife was 99 clients at booking, 56 at the start of labour, 33 at childbirth, and 90 clients in post partum care. CONCLUSION: the midwives worked on an average more hours in 2010 than they did in 2004 or 2001, but spent these extra hours increasingly on non-client-related activities.