Freestanding midwifery units versus obstetric units: does the effect of place of birth differ with level of social disadvantage?

BMC Public Health

Jane Sandall¹  Morten Fenger-Grøn³  Charlotte Overgaard² 

[1] King’s College,Women’s Health Academic Centre King's Health Partners, London, UK;Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, 9220Aalborg, Denmark;Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Denmark

关键词: Low risk women;    Level of education;    Social position;    Birth outcomes;    Social inequity;    Freestanding midwifery unit;    Childbirth;   

Others  :  1163497
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-478

 received in 2012-01-22, accepted in 2012-06-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Social inequity in perinatal and maternal health is a well-documented health problem even in countries with a high level of social equality. We aimed to study whether the effect of birthplace on perinatal and maternal morbidity, birth interventions and use of pain relief among low risk women intending to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units (FMU) versus two obstetric units in Denmark differed by level of social disadvantage.

Methods

The study was designed as a cohort study with a matched control group. It included 839 low-risk women intending to give birth in an FMU, who were prospectively and individually matched on nine selected obstetric/socio-economic factors to 839 low-risk women intending OU birth. Educational level was chosen as a proxy for social position. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

Results

Women intending to give birth in an FMU had a significantly higher likelihood of uncomplicated, spontaneous birth with good outcomes for mother and infant compared to women intending to give birth in an OU. The likelihood of intact perineum, use of upright position for birth and water birth was also higher. No difference was found in perinatal morbidity or third/fourth degree tears, while birth interventions including caesarean section and epidural analgesia were significantly less frequent among women intending to give birth in an FMU. In our sample of healthy low-risk women with spontaneous onset of labour at term after an uncomplicated pregnancy, the positive results of intending to give birth in an FMU as compared to an OU were found to hold for both women with post-secondary education and the potentially vulnerable group of FMU women without post-secondary education. In all cases, women without post-secondary education intending to give birth in an FMU had comparable and, in some respects, more favourable outcomes when compared to women with the same level of education intending to give birth in an OU. In this sample of low-risk women, we found that the effect of intended place on birth outcomes did not differ with women’s level of education.

Conclusion

FMU care appears to offer important benefits for birthing women with no additional risk to the infant. Both for women with and without post-secondary education, intending to give birth in an FMU significantly increased the likelihood of a spontaneous, uncomplicated birth with good outcomes for mother and infant compared to women intending to give birth in an OU. All women should be provided with adequate information about different care models and supported in making an informed decision about the place of birth.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Overgaard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Karlsen S, Say L, Souza J-P, Hogue CJ, Calles DL, Gülmezoglu MA, et al.: The relationship between maternal education and mortality among women giving birth in health care institutions: Analysis of the cross sectional WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:606. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Braveman P, Gruskin S: Defining equity in health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:254-258.
• [3]Rom AL, Mortensen LH, Cnattingius S, Arentzen A, Gissler M, Nybo Andersen A-M: A comparative study of educational inequality in the risk of stillbirth in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden 1981–2000. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 3:240-246. jech.2009.101188
• [4]Gissler M, Rahkonen O, Arntzen A, Cnattingius S, Andersen AM, Hemminki E: Trends in socioeconomic differences in Finnish perinatal health 1991–2006. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009, 63:420-425.
• [5]Hollowell J, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Gray R: Social and ethnic inequalities in Infant mortality: a perspective from the United Kingdom. Semin Perinatol 2011, 35:240-244.
• [6]Jorgensen T, Mortensen LH, Andersen AM: Social inequality in fetal and perinatal mortality in the Nordic countries. Scand J Public Health 2008, 36:635-649.
• [7]Bakketeig LS, Cnattingius S, Knudsen LB: Socioeconomic Differences in Fetal and Infant Mortality in Scandinavia. Journal of Public Health Policy 1993, 14:82-90.
• [8]Hogue CJR, Hargraves MA: Class, Race and Infant Mortality in the United States. Am J Public Health 1993, 83:9-12.
• [9]Hemminki E, Meriläinen J, Malin M, Rahkonen O, Teperi J: Mother's education and perinatal problems in Finland. International Journal of Epidemiology 1993, 21:720-724.
• [10]Morgen CS, Bjørk C, Andersen PK, Mortensen LH: Andersen A-M N: Socioeconomic position and the risk of preterm birh - a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008, 37:1109-1120.
• [11]Petersen CB, Mortensen LH, Morgen CS, Madsen M, Schnor O, Arntzen A, et al.: Socio-economic inequality in preterm birth: a comparative study of the Nordic countries from 1981 to 2000. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009, 23:66-75.
• [12]Ancel P-Y, Saurel-Cubizolles M-J, Di Renzo GC, Papiernik E, Bréart G, et al.: Social differences of very preterm birth in Europe: interaction with obstetric history. Am J Epidemiol 1999, 149:908-915.
• [13]Young RL, Declercq E: Implications of subdividing marital status: are unmarried mothers with partners different from unmarried women without partners? An exploratory analysis. Matern Child Health J 2010, 14:209-214.
• [14]Mortensen LH, Diderichsen F: Davey Smith G, Nybo Andersen AM: Time is on whose side? Time trends in the association between maternal social disadvantage and offspring fetal growth. A study of 1 409 339 births in Denmark, 1981–2004. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009, 63:281-285.
• [15]Lin W: Why has the health inequalty among infants in the US declined? Accounting for the shrinking gap. Heal Econ 2009, 18:823-841.
• [16]Nordström M-L, Cnattingius S: Effects on birthweights of maternal education, socio-economic status, and work-related characteristics. Scand J Soc Med 1996, 24:55-61.
• [17]Manning D, Brewster B, Bundred P: Social deprivation and admission for neonatal care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005, 90(4):F337-F338.
• [18]Martens PJ, Derksen S, Gypta S: Predictors of Hospital Readmission of Manitoba Newborns Within Six Weeks Postbirth Discharge: A Population-Based Study. Pediatrics 2004, 114:708-713.
• [19]Schytt E, Waldenström U: Epidural analgesia for labor pain: whose choice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010, 89:238-242.
• [20]Le Ray D, Goffinet F, Palot M, Geral M, Blondel B: Factors associated with the choice of delivery without epidural analgesia in women at low risk in France. Birth 2008, 35:171-178.
• [21]de Jonge A, Rijnders ME, van Diem MT, Scheepers PL, Langro-Janssen AL: Are there inequalities in choice of birthing position? Sociodemographic and labour factors associated with the supine position during the second stage of labour. Midwifery 2009, 25:439-448.
• [22]Cesaroni G, Forastiere F, Perucci CA: Are cesarean deliveries more likely for poorly educated parents? A brief report from Italy. Birth 2008, 35:241-244.
• [23]Guihard P, Blondel B: Trends in risk factors for caesarean section in France between 1981 and 1995: Lessons for reducing the rates in the future. BJOG 2001, 108:48-55.
• [24]Alves B, Sheikh A: Investigating the relationship between affluence and elective caesarean sections. BJOG 2005, 112:994-996.
• [25]Roberts CL, Tracy S, Peat B: Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study. BMJ 2000, 11:321.
• [26]Barley K, Aylin P, Bottle A, Jarman B: Social class and elective caesareans in the English NHS. BMJ 2004, 328:1399. une 12
• [27]Tollånes MC, Thompson JMD, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM: Cesarean section and maternal education; secular trends in Norway, 1967–2004. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007, 86:840-848.
• [28]Fisher J, Smith A, Astbury J: Private health insureance and a healthy personality: new risk factors for obstetric interventions? J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1995, 16:1-9.
• [29]Hurst M, Summey P: Childbirth and social class: the case of cesarean delivery. Soc Sci Med 1984, 18:621-631.
• [30]Salvador J, Cano-Serral G, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Lladonosa A, Borrell C: Inequalities in caesarean section: influence of the type of maternity care and social class in an area with a national health system. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009, 63:259-261.
• [31]Davis D, Baddock S, Tchng D, Pairman S, Hunter M, Benn C, et al.: Planned Place of Birth in New Zealand: Does it Affect Mode of Birth and Intervention Rates Among Low-Risk Women? Birth 2011, 38:111-121.
• [32]Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S: Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008.
• [33]Zadoroznyj M: Social class, social selves and social control in childbirth. Sociol Health Illn 1999, 21:267-289.
• [34]Nelson MK: Working-class women, middle-class women, and modwls of childbirth. Soc Probl 1983, 30:284-297.
• [35]Green J, Coupland V, Kitzinger J: Great expectations: a prospective study of women's expectations and experiences of childbirth. Books for Midwives Press, England: Hale; 1998.
• [36]Green J, Baston H: Feeling in Control During Labor: Concepts, Correlates, and Consequenses. Birth 2003, 30:235-247.
• [37]Lazarus E: What Do Women Want?: Issues of Choice, Control, and Class in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Medical Antropology Quaterly 1994, 8:25-46.
• [38]McCourt C, Rance S, Rayment J, Sandall J: Birthplace qualitative organisational case studies: how maternity care systems may affect the provision of care in different birth settings. 6th edition. 2011. Final report part
• [39]Hemmingway H, Saunders D, Parsons L: Social class, spoken language and pattern of care as determinats of continuity of carer in maternity services in east London. J Public Health 1997, 19:156-161.
• [40]Hart A, Lockley R: In equalities in health care provision: the relationship between contemporary policy and contemporary practice in maternity services in England. J Adv Nurs 2002, 37:485-493.
• [41]Kramer MS, Seguin L, Lydon J, Goulet L: Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly? Pediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2000, 14:194-210.
• [42]Pairman S, Guilliland K: Developing a midwife-led maternity service: The New Zealand experience. In Birth Centres. Edited by Kirkham M. Elsevier Science Limited, London; 2003:209-238.
• [43]Saunders D, Boulton M, Chapple J: Ratcliff J. Evaluation of the Edgware Birth Center. Middlesex, Levitan J; 2000.
• [44]Fraser W, Hatem-Asmar M, Krauss I, Maillard F, Bréart G, Blais R: Comparison of midwifery care to medical care in hospitals in the Quebec pilot projects study: clinical indicators. L'Equipe dEvaluation des Projets-Pilotes Sages-Femmes. Can J Public Health 2000, 91:I5-I11.
• [45]Rooks JP, et al.: Outcomes of care in Birth Centers. The national Birth Center Study. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:1804-1811.
• [46]Schmid V: Against the odds: Italy's birth centre movement. Pract Midwife 2005, 8:22-24.
• [47]David M, Pachaly J, Wiemer A, Gross MM: Out-of-hospital births in Germany–a comparison of "large", "medium", and "small" free-standing birth centres. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2006, 210:166-172.
• [48]Seedat BA: Comparison of a private midwife obstetric unit and a private consultant obstetric unit. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa; 2006.
• [49]Koiffman MD, Schneck CA, Riesco ML, Bonadio IC: Risk factors for neonatal transfers from the Sapopemba free-standing birth centre to a hospital in Sao Paulo. Brazil, Midwifery; 2009.
• [50]Schmidt N, Abelsen B, Oian P: Deliveries in maternity homes in Norway: results from a 2-year prospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002, 8(8):731-737.
• [51]Department of Health/Partnerships for Children FaM. Maternity Matters: Choice, access and continuity of care in a safe service. DH Publications Orderline, United Kingdom: London; 200.
• [52]Helsedirektoratet: Et trygt fødetilbud. Kvalitetskrav til fødselsomsorgen. Norge, Oslo; 2010.
• [53]Kirkham M: Birth centres : a social model for maternity care. Butterworth-Heinemann, England; 2003.
• [54]Pettersson KO, Svensson ML, Christensson K: The lived experiences of autonomous Angolan midwives working in midwifery-led, maternity units. Midwifery 2001, 17:102-114.
• [55]Rana TG, Rajopadhyaya R, Bajracharya B, Karmacharya M, Osrin D: Comparison of midwifery-led and consultant-led maternity care for low risk deliveries in Nepal. Health Policy Plan. 2003, 18:330-337.
• [56]GUEE R: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit: The Birthplace in England Research Programme.Report of Component Study 1. Oxford University, England; 2007.
• [57]Stewart M, McCandlish R, Henderson J, Brocklehurst P: Review of evidence about clinical, psychosocial and economic outcomes for women with straightforward pregnancies who plan to give birth in a midwife-led birth centre, and outcomes for their babies. The National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford; 2005.
• [58]Birthplace in England Collaborative Group: Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. Additional tables 5.1.. 2001. Additional tables 5.1. BMJ
• [59]Overgaard C, Møller AM, Fenger-Grøn M, Knudsen LB, Sandall J: Freestanding midwifery-led unit versus obstetric unit:a matched cohort study of outcomes in women at low-risk. BMJ Open 2011, 2:e000262.
• [60]Hodnett E, Downe S, Walsh D, Weston J: Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birt. 2010. Art. No. CD000012
• [61]Hunter L: A Descriptive Study of "Being with Woman" During Labour and Birth. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009, 54:111-118.
• [62]Walker J, Hall S, Thomas M: The experience of labour:a perspective from those receiving care in a midwife-led unit. Midwifery 1995, 11:120-129.
• [63]Overgaard C, Fenger-Grøn M, Sandall J: The impact of birthplace on women's birth experiences and perceptions of care. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74:973-981.
• [64]Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: RCOG statement on the restults of the NPEU Birthplace study. 2001. Http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-results-npeu-birthplace-study webcite
• [65]Neuhaus W, Piroth C, Kiencke P, Göhring UJ, Mallman P: A psychosocial analysis of women planning birth outside hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002, 22:143-149.
• [66]Waldenström U, Nilsson CA: Characteristics of women choosing birth center care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993, 72:181-188.
• [67]Hildingsson I: WURI: Swedish women's interest in home birth and in-hospital birth center care. Birth 2003, 30:11-22.
• [68]Combier E, Zeitlinb J, de Courcelc N, Vasseurc S, Laloufc A, Amat-Rozec JM, et al.: Choosing where to deliver: decision criteria among women with low-risk pregnancies in France. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:2289.
• [69]Bonderup T, Nibe M, Jensen T: Valg af fødested - en undersøgelse af gravides valg af fødested og deres ønsker for tilbud på fødeklinikker. Nordjyllands Amt. Center for Kompetenceudvikling, Aalborg; 2005.
• [70]Roemer VM, Ramb S: Zentralisierung in der Geburtshilfe: Pro und Contra. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 1996, 200:2-12.
• [71]David M, Pachaly J, Vetter K, Kentenich H: Geburtsort Geburtshaus - Perinataldaten im Vergleich zu Klinikentbindungen in Bayern und Berlin. Z Geburtshilfe Neonato 2004, 208:110-117.
• [72]Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al.: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 2007, 18:805-835.
• [73]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007, 335:806-808.
• [74]National Institute for health and clinical excellence: Intrapartum care for healthy women and their babies during childbirth. NICE clinical guideline 55, England: London; 2007.
• [75]Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE: Measuring social class in US public health research. Annu Rev Public Health 1997, 18:341-378.
• [76]Mortensen LH, Diderichsen F, Arntzen A, et al.: Social inequality in fetal growth: a comparative study of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in the period 1981–2000. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008, 62:331.
• [77]The Ministry of children and education: Overview of the Danish Education system. , Danmark: Copenhagen; 2011. http://eng.uvm.dk/Education/Overview-of-the-Danish-Education-System webcite
• [78]Justitsministeriet: Lov nr. 429 om behandling af personoplysninger af 31/05/2000. personoplysninger, Denmark: Copenhagen; 2001.
• [79]Gueer Y: The Region of North Jutland: Population information. Befolkning.htm, Denmark; 2011. http://www.rn.dk/Regionen/FaktaOmNordjylland webcite
• [80]World Health Organisation. Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Moterhood Unit. Family and Reproductive Health: Safe Motherhood. Care in Normal Birth: a practical guide. World Health Organisation, Geneva; 1996.
• [81]Jackson DJ, Lang JM, Swartz WH, Ganiats WG, Fullerton J, Ecker J, et al.: Outcomes, Safety, and Resource Utilization in a Collaborative Care Birth Center Program Compared With Traditional Physician-Based Perinatal Care. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:999-1006.
• [82]Rooks JP, Weatherby NL, Ernst EK: The National Birth Center Study. Part I--Methodology and prenatal care and referrals. J Nurse Midwifery 1992, 37:222-253.
• [83]Garite TJ, Snell BJ, Walker DL, Darrow VC: Development and Experience of a University-Based, Freestanding Birthing Center. Obstet Gynecol 1995, 86(3):416-411.
• [84]Rooks JP, Weatherby NL, Ernst EK: The National Birth Center Study. Part II--Intrapartum and immediate postpartum and neonatal care. J Nurse Midwifery 1992, 37:301-330.
• [85]Stone PW: Maternity care outcomes: assessing a nursing model of care for low-risk pregnancy. Outcomes Manag Nurs Pract 1998, 2:271-275.
• [86]Feldman E, Hurst M: Outcomes and procedures in low risk birth: A comparison of hospital and birth center settings. Birth 1987, 1:18-24.
• [87]David M: Kraker von Schwarzenfeld H, Dimer JAS, Kentenich H: Perinatal outcome in hospital and birth center obstetric care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999, 65:149-156.
• [88]Scupholme A, McLeod AGW, Robertson EG: A birth center affiliated with the tertiary care center: Comparison of outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1986, 4:598-603.
• [89]David M, Pachaly J, Vetter K, Kentenich H: Birthplace free-standing birth center – perinatal data in comparison with clinic deliveries in Bavaria and Berlin. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2004, 208:110-117.
• [90]Richmond H: Women's experience of waterbirth. Pract Midwife. 2003, 6:26-31.
• [91]Blenstrup LT, Knudsen LB: Registers on aspects of reproduction. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2011, 39:79-82.
• [92]Johansen A, Holstein BE, Nybo Andersen AM, et al.: Social ulighed i sundhed blandt børn og unge. Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, København; 2007.
• [93]Sundhedsstyrelsen: Svangreomsorg. Retningslinier og redegørelse. Sundhedsvæsenets indsats i forbindelse med graviditet, fødsel og barselperiode. Sundhedsstyrelsen,  ; 1998.
• [94]Sundhedsforvaltningen NA: [http:/ / www.nja.dk/ Serviceomraader/ SundhedOgSygehuse/ Sundhedsplaner/ Foedselhjaelpsplan.htm] webciteFødselshjælpsplan. cune, cebu; 2003.
• [95]Cliff H: Fast ansat ved mysteriet. Den Almindelige Danske Jordemoderforening, København; 2000.
• [96]Cliff H: Jordemoderfaglig identitet mellem tålmodighedsomsorg og omsorgsrationalitet : Analyse af jordemødres omsorg og identitet i historisk perspektiv. Institut for Folkloristik, Københavns Universitet, Ph.D.afhandling. København.; 1993.
• [97]Smith LK, Draper ES, Manktelow BN, Field DJ: Socioeconomic inequalities in surveival and provision of neonatal care: population based study of very preterm infants. BMJ 2009, 339:11.
• [98]Wilkinson RG, Pickett K: The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for every one. Pinguin Books Ltd, United Kingdom; 2010.
• [99]Guevvera Y: World Health Organisation: Neonatal and perinatal mortality: country, regional and global estimates. sun, cebu; 2006.