Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in a home-like birth centre: a case–control study

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the intervention rates associated with labor in low-risk women who began their labor in the “home-like birth centre” (HLBC) and the traditional labor ward (TLW).

Methods

This retrospective study used data that were collected from January 2005 to June 2008, from women admitted to the HLBC (n = 316) and compared to a group of randomly selected low-risk women admitted to the TLW (n = 890) using the Baysian information criterion to select the best predictive model.

Results

Women in the HLBC had spontaneous vaginal deliveries more often (88.6 vs. 82.8 %, p value 0.034) and perineal lesions less often (60.1 vs. 62.5 %, p value 0.013). The frequency of adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ statistically between the two groups, although the mean clamped at birth umbilical arterial pH level was higher in the HLBC group. The transfer rate from HLBC to TLW was 31.3 % of which 75.8 % were nulliparae.

Conclusions

It appears that women could benefit from HLBC care in settings such as the one studied. Larger observational studies are warranted to validate these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) (1996) Revised 1990 estimates of maternal mortality: a new approach by WHO and UNICEF. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  2. Turnbull D, Holmes A, Shields N et al (1996) Randomized controlled trial of efficacy of midwife-managed care. Lancet 348:213–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Waldenström U, Nilsson CA (1994) Experience of childbirth in birth centre care. A randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73:547–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 343:d7400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morano S, Cerutti F, Mistrangelo E, Pastorino D, Benussi M, Costantini S, Ragni N (2007) Outcomes of the first midwife-led birth centre in Italy: 5 years’ experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276:333–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eide BI, Britt Vika Nilsen A, Rasmussen S (2009) Births in two different delivery units in the same clinic–a prospective study of healthy primiparous women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 9:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wax JR, Lucas FL, Lamont M et al (2010) Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:243.e1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA, Winbladh B (1997) The Stockholm birth centre trial: maternal and infant outcome. BJOG 104:410–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org

  10. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Edwards N, Walsh D (2010) Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD000012

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klein M, Papageorgiou A, Westreich R et al (1984) Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J 131:1461–1466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD et al (1994) Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomized controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 309:1400–1404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chapman MG, Jones M, Spring JE, De Swiet M, Chamberlain GVP (1986) The use of a birthroom: a randomized controlled trial comparing delivery with that in the labor ward. BJOG 93:182–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. MacVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen-Johnstone L, Jagger C, Hopkins M, Kennedy J (1993) Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG 100:316–323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Byrne JP, Crowther CA, Moss JR (2000) A randomized controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 40(3):268–274

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lawrence A, Lewis L, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T, Styles C (2009) Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003934

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C (2003) Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003766

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thacker SB, Stroup D, Chang M (2001) Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:000063

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nesheim BI, Eskild A, Gjessing L (2010) Does allocation of low risk parturient women to a separate maternity unit decrease the risk of emergency cesarean section? Acta Obstet Gynecol 89:813–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. AUDIPOG (2004) Perinatal health in 2002–2003. http://www.audipog.net/pdf/Cahier_2002_2003.pdf

  21. Cluett ER, Nikodem VC, McCandlish RE, Burns EE (2004) Immersion in water in pregnancy, labor and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:000111

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kotaska AJ, Klein MC, Liston RM (2006) Epidural analgesia associated with low-dose oxytocin augmentation increases cesarean births: a critical look at the external validity of randomized trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:809–814

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Howell CJ, Kidd C, Roberts W et al (2001) A randomized controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labor. BJOG 108:27–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lieberman E, O’Donoghue C (2002) Unintended effects of epidural analgesia during labor: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:S31–S68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kjærgaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Nyberg P, Dykes AK (2008) Obstetric risk indicators for labor dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 8:45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Jones L (2011) Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD000331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gottvall K, Grunewald Ch, Waldenström U (2004) Safety of birth centre care: perinatal mortality over a 10-year period. BJOG 111:71–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. RCOG and Royal College of Midwives Joint Statement (2007) Home Births No.2. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploadedfiles/JointStatmentHomeBirths2007.pdf

  29. Holt J, Vold IN, BackeB Johansen MV, Øian P (2001) Child births in a modified midwife managed unit: selection and transfer according to intended place of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:206–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Berglund A, Lindmark G (2000) Risk assessment at the end of pregnancy is a poor predictor for complications at delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79:854–860

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Langer B, Gaudineau A, Weingertner As, David E (2009) [Low-risk pregnancy and low-risk delivery: can we really consider it?]. Gynécol Obstet Fertil 37:200–203 [Article in french]

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Colmant C, Frydman R (2009) [Do low risk pregnancy and low risk delivery exist?]. Gynécol Obstet Fertil 37:195–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the assistance of all midwives of the maternity of the University Hospital of Strasbourg. This study received the Gallia fund. The laboratory had no role in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data and in the writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

All authors have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that sponsored the research. They have full control of all primary data and they agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, 67098, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Adrien Gaudineau, Israël Nisand & Bruno Langer

  2. Department of Public Health, University Hospital of Strasbourg, 1 place de l’Hopital, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Erik-André Sauleau

Authors
  1. Adrien Gaudineau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik-André Sauleau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Israël Nisand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruno Langer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrien Gaudineau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaudineau, A., Sauleau, EA., Nisand, I. et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in a home-like birth centre: a case–control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 211–216 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2553-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2553-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation