Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.  SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.

Optimal outcomes and women's positive pregnancy experience: a comparison between the World Health Organization guideline and recommendations in European national antenatal care guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on antenatal care in 2016 introduced the perspective of women as a necessary component of clinical guidelines in maternity care. WHO highlights the crucial role played by evidence-based recommendations in promoting and supporting normal birth processes and a positive experience of pregnancy. This paper aims to explore and critically appraise recommendations of national antenatal care guidelines across European countries in comparison with the WHO guideline. METHODS: We collected guidelines from country partners of the EU COST Action IS1405. Components of the documents structure and main recommendations within and between them were compared and contrasted with the WHO guideline on antenatal care with a particular interest in exploring whether and how women's experience was included in the recommendations. RESULTS: Eight out of eleven countries had a single national guideline on antenatal care while three countries did not. National guidelines mostly focused on care of healthy women with a straightforward pregnancy. The level of concordance between the national and the WHO recommendations varied along a continuum from almost total concordance to almost total dissonance. Women's views and experiences were accounted for in some guidelines, but mostly not placed at the same level of importance as clinical items. CONCLUSIONS: Findings outline convergences and divergences with the WHO recommendations. They highlight the need for considering women's views more in the development of evidence-based recommendations and in practice for positive impacts on perinatal health at a global level, and on the experiences of each family.

Moving beyond disrespect and abuse: addressing the structural dimensions of obstetric violence.

During recent decades, a growing and preoccupying excess of medical interventions during childbirth, even in physiological and uncomplicated births, together with a concerning spread of abusive and disrespectful practices towards women during childbirth across the world, have been reported. Despite research and policy-making to address these problems, changing childbirth practices has proved to be difficult. We argue that the excessive rates of medical interventions and disrespect towards women during childbirth should be analysed as a consequence of structural violence, and that the concept of obstetric violence, as it is being used in Latin American childbirth activism and legal documents, might prove to be a useful tool for addressing structural violence in maternity care such as high intervention rates, non-consented care, disrespect and other abusive practices.

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned home birth in many places can be as safe as planned hospital birth and with less intervention and fewer complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth in selected low-risk women, assisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up in case transfer should be necessary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012) and contacted editors and authors involved with possible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria but only one trial involving 11 women provided some outcome data and was included. The evidence from this trial was of moderate quality and too small to allow conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence from randomised trials to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for low-risk pregnant women. However, the trials show that women living in areas where they are not well informed about home birth may welcome ethically well-designed trials that would ensure an informed choice. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new randomised controlled trials.