How does the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring influence women's experiences of labour? A systematic integrative review of the literature from high income countries.

BACKGROUND: A variety of technologies are used to monitor fetal wellbeing in labour. Different types of fetal monitoring devices impact women's experiences of labour and birth. AIM: This review aims to understand how continuous electronic fetal monitoring (CEFM) influences women's experiences, with a focus on sense of control, active decision-making and mobility. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted. Findings from qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were analysed to provide a review of current evidence. FINDINGS: Eighteen publications were included. The findings were synthesised into three themes: 'Feeling reassured versus anxious about the welfare of their baby', 'Feeling comfortable and free to be mobile versus feeling uncomfortable and restricted', and 'Feeling respected and empowered to make decisions versus feeling depersonalised with minimal control '. Women experienced discomfort and a lack of mobility as a result of some CEFM technologies. They often felt anxious and had mixed feelings about their baby's welfare whilst these were in use. Some women valued the data produced by CEFM technologies about the welfare of their baby. Many women experienced a sense of depersonalisation and lack of control whilst CEFM technologies were used. DISCUSSION: Fetal monitoring technologies influence women's experiences of labour both positively and negatively. Wireless devices were associated with the most positive response as they enabled greater freedom of movement. CONCLUSION: The design of emerging fetal monitoring technologies should incorporate elements which foster freedom of movement, are comfortable and provide women with a sense of choice and control. The implementation of fetal monitoring that enables these elements should be prioritised by health professionals.

Modelling the cost of place of birth: a pathway analysis.

BACKGROUND: In New South Wales (NSW), Australia there are three settings available for women at low risk of complications to give birth: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, 93.6% of babies were planned to be born in hospital, 6.0% in a birth centre and 0.4% at home. Availability of alternative birth settings is limited and the cost of providing birth at home or in a birth centre from the perspective of the health system is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to model the cost of the trajectories of women who planned to give birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital from the public sector perspective. METHODS: This was a population-based study using linked datasets from NSW, Australia. Women included met the following selection criteria: 37-41 completed weeks of pregnancy, spontaneous onset of labour, and singleton pregnancy at low risk of complications. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and Australian Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRGs) were applied to each trajectory to estimate the cost of birth. A scenario analysis was undertaken to model the cost for 30 000 women in one year. FINDINGS: 496 387 women were included in the dataset. Twelve potential outcome pathways were identified and each pathway was costed using AR-DRGs. An overall cost was also calculated by place of birth: $AUD4802 for homebirth, $AUD4979 for a birth centre birth and $AUD5463 for a hospital birth. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study provides some clarity into the financial saving of offering more options to women seeking an alternative to giving birth in hospital. Given the relatively lower rates of complex intervention and neonatal outcomes associated with women at low risk of complications, we can assume the cost of providing them with homebirth and birth centre options could be cost-effective.

The impact of planning for COVID-19 on private practising midwives in Australia.

PROBLEM: The COVID-19 pandemic response has required planning for the safe provision of care. In Australia, privately practising midwives are an important group to consider as they often struggle for acceptance by the health system. BACKGROUND: There are around 200 Endorsed Midwives eligible to practice privately in Australia (privately practising midwives) who provide provide the full continuum of midwifery care. AIM: To explore the experience of PPMs in relation to the response to planning for the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online survey was distributed through social media and personal networks to privately practising midwives in Australia in April 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and three privately practising midwives responded to the survey. The majority (82%) felt very, or well informed, though nearly half indicated they would value specifically tailored information especially from professional bodies. One third (35%) felt prepared regarding PPE but many lacked masks, gowns and gloves, hand sanitiser and disinfectant. Sixty four percent acquired PPE through social media community sharing sites, online orders, hardware stores or made masks. Sixty-eight percent of those with collaborative arrangements with local hospitals reported a lack of support and were unable to support women who needed transfer to hospital. The majority (93%) reported an increase in the number of enquiries relating to homebirth. CONCLUSION: Privately practising midwives were resourceful, sought out information and were prepared. Support from the hospital sector was not always present. Lessons need to be learned especially in terms of integration, support, education and being included as part of the broader health system.

The cost of vaginal birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital setting in New South Wales: A micro-costing study.

BACKGROUND: Women want greater choice of place of birth in New South Wales, Australia. It is perceived to be more costly to health services for women with a healthy pregnancy to give birth at home or in a birth centre. It is not known how much it costs the health service to provide care for women planning to give birth in these settings. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the direct cost of giving birth vaginally at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital for women at low risk of complications, in New South Wales. METHODS: A micro-costing design was used. Observational (time and motion) and resource use data collection was undertaken to identify the staff time and resources required to provide care in a public hospital, birth centre or at home for women with a healthy pregnancy. FINDINGS: The median cost of providing care for women who plan to give birth at home, in a birth centre and in a hospital were similar (AUD $2150.07, $2100.59 and $2097.30 respectively). Midwifery time was the largest contributor to the cost of birth at home, and overhead costs accounted for over half of the total cost of BC and hospital birth. The cost of consumables was low in all three settings. CONCLUSION: In this study, we have found there is little difference in the cost to the health service when a woman has an uncomplicated vaginal birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital setting.

Mapping the trajectories for women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital in New South Wales, Australia, between 2000 and 2012.

BACKGROUND: In New South Wales (NSW) Australia, women at low risk of complications can choose from three birth settings: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, around 6.4% of pregnant women planned to give birth in a birth centre (6%) or at home (0.4%) and 93.6% of women planned to birth in a hospital. A proportion of the woman in the home and birth centre groups transferred to hospital. However, their pathways or trajectories are largely unknown. AIM: The aim was to map the trajectories and interventions experienced by women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital over a 13-year period in NSW. METHODS: Using population-based linked datasets from NSW, women at low risk of complications, with singleton pregnancies, gestation 37-41 completed weeks and spontaneous onset of labour were included. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and estimate the probabilities of the following: giving birth in their planned setting; being transferred; requiring interventions and neonatal admission to higher level hospital care. The trajectories were analysed by parity. RESULTS: Over a 13-year period, 23% of nulliparous and 0.8% of multiparous women planning a home birth were transferred to hospital. In the birth centre group, 34% of nulliparae and 12% of multiparas were transferred to a hospital. Normal vaginal birth rates were higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women in all settings. Neonatal admission to SCN/NICU was highest in the planned hospital group for nulliparous women (10.1%), 7.1% for nulliparous women planning a birth centre birth and 5.1% of nulliparous women planning a homebirth. Multiparas had lower admissions to SCN/NICU for all thee settings (hospital 6.3%, BC 3.6%, home 1.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Women who plan to give birth at home or in a birth centre have high rates of vaginal birth, even when transferred to hospital. Evidence on the trajectories of women who choose to give birth at home or in birth centres will assist the planning, costing and expansion of models of care in NSW.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth in Australia 2000 - 2012: a linked population data study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal and maternal outcomes for Australian women with uncomplicated pregnancies according to planned place of birth, that is, in hospital labour wards, birth centres or at home. DESIGN: A population-based retrospective design, linking and analysing routinely collected electronic data. Analysis comprised χ2 tests and binary logistic regression for categorical data, yielding adjusted ORs. Continuous data were analysed using analysis of variance. SETTING: All eight Australian states and territories. PARTICIPANTS: Women with uncomplicated pregnancies who gave birth between 2000 and 2012 to a singleton baby in cephalic presentation at between 37 and 41 completed weeks' gestation. Of the 1 251 420 births, 1 171 703 (93.6%) were planned in hospital labour wards, 71 505 (5.7%) in birth centres and 8212 (0.7%) at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of birth, normal labour and birth, interventions and procedures during labour and birth, maternal complications, admission to special care/high dependency or intensive care units (mother or infant) and perinatal mortality (intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal death). RESULTS: Compared with planned hospital births, the odds of normal labour and birth were over twice as high in planned birth centre births (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.72; 99% CI 2.63 to 2.81) and nearly six times as high in planned home births (AOR 5.91; 99% CI 5.15 to 6.78). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of intrapartum stillbirths, early or late neonatal deaths between the three planned places of birth. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Australia-wide study to examine outcomes by planned place of birth. For healthy women in Australia having an uncomplicated pregnancy, planned births in birth centres or at home are associated with positive maternal outcomes although the number of homebirths was small overall. There were no significant differences in the perinatal mortality rate, although the absolute numbers of deaths were very small and therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn about perinatal mortality outcomes.

Creating the first national linked dataset on perinatal and maternal outcomes in Australia: Methods and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Data linkage offers a powerful mechanism for examining healthcare outcomes across populations and can generate substantial robust datasets using routinely collected electronic data. However, it presents methodological challenges, especially in Australia where eight separate states and territories maintain health datasets. This study used linked data to investigate perinatal and maternal outcomes in relation to place of birth. It examined data from all eight jurisdictions regarding births planned in hospitals, birth centres and at home. Data linkage enabled the first Australia-wide dataset on birth outcomes. However, jurisdictional differences in data collection created challenges in obtaining comparable cohorts of women with similar low-risk pregnancies in all birth settings. The objective of this paper is to describe the techniques for managing previously linked data, and specifically for ensuring the resulting dataset contained only low-risk pregnancies. METHODS: This paper indicates the procedures for preparing and merging linked perinatal, inpatient and mortality data from different sources, providing technical guidance to address challenges arising in linked data study designs. RESULTS: We combined data from eight jurisdictions linking four collections of administrative healthcare and civil registration data. The merging process ensured that variables were consistent, compatible and relevant to study aims. To generate comparable cohorts for all three birth settings, we developed increasingly complex strategies to ensure that the dataset eliminated women with pregnancies at risk of complications during labour and birth. It was then possible to compare birth outcomes for comparable samples, enabling specific examination of the impact of birth setting on maternal and infant safety across Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage is a valuable resource to enhance knowledge about birth outcomes from different settings, notwithstanding methodological challenges. Researchers can develop and share practical techniques to address these challenges. Study findings suggest that jurisdictions develop more consistent data collections to facilitate future data linkage.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety of different birth settings is widely debated. Comparing research across high-income countries is complex, given differences in maternity service provision, data discrepancies, and varying research techniques and quality. Studies of births planned at home or in birth centres have reported both better and poorer outcomes than planned hospital births. Previous systematic reviews have focused on outcomes from either birth centres or home births, with inconsistent attention to quality appraisal. Few have attempted to synthesise findings. OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and perinatal outcomes from different places of birth via a systematic review of high-quality research, and meta-analysis of appropriate data (Prospero registration CRD42016042291). DESIGN: Reviewers searched CINAHL, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care, Medline and PsycINFO databases to identify studies comparing selected outcomes by place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries. They critically appraised identified studies using an instrument specific to birth place research and then combined outcome data via meta-analysis, using RevMan software. FINDINGS: Twenty-eight articles met inclusion criteria, yielding comparative data on perinatal mortality, mode of birth, maternal morbidity and/or NICU admissions. Meta-analysis indicated that women planning hospital births had statistically significantly lower odds of normal vaginal birth than in other planned settings. Women experienced severe perineal trauma or haemorrhage at a lower rate in planned home births than in obstetric units. There were no statistically significant differences in infant mortality by planned place of birth, although most studies had limited statistical power to detect differences for rare outcomes. Differences in location, context, quality and design of identified studies render results subject to variation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: High-quality evidence about low-risk pregnancies indicates that place of birth had no statistically significant impact on infant mortality. The lower odds of maternal morbidity and obstetric intervention support the expansion of birth centre and home birth options for women with low-risk pregnancies.

The ResQu Index: A new instrument to appraise the quality of research on birth place.

OBJECTIVE: Place of birth is a known determinant of health care outcomes, interventions and costs. Many studies have examined the maternal and perinatal outcomes when women plan to give birth in hospitals compared with births in birth centres or at home. However, these studies vary substantially in rigour; assessing their quality is challenging. Existing research appraisal tools do not always capture important elements of study design that are critical when comparing outcomes by planned place of birth. To address this deficiency, we aimed to develop a reliable instrument to rate the quality of primary research on maternal and newborn outcomes by place of birth. STUDY DESIGN: The instrument development process involved five phases: 1) generation of items and a weighted scoring system; 2) content validation via a quantitative survey and a modified Delphi process with an international, multi-disciplinary panel of experts; 3) inter-rater consistency; 4) alignment with established research appraisal tools; and 5) pilot-testing of instrument usability. RESULTS: A Birth Place Research Quality Index (ResQu Index) was developed comprising 27 scored items that are summed to generate a weighted composite score out of 100 for studies comparing planned place of birth. Scale content validation indices were .89 for clarity, .94 for relevance and .90 for importance. The Index demonstrated substantial inter-rater consistency; pilot-testing confirmed feasibility and user-friendliness. CONCLUSION: The ResQu Index is a reliable instrument to evaluate the quality of design, methods and interpretation of reported outcomes from research about place of birth. Higher-scoring studies have greater potential to inform evidence-based selection of birth place by clinicians, policy makers, and women and their families. The Index can also guide the design of future research on place of birth.

Birthplace in New South Wales, Australia: an analysis of perinatal outcomes using routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes for women who give birth in hospital compared with at home are the subject of ongoing debate. We aimed to determine whether a retrospective linked data study using routinely collected data was a viable means to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the onset of labour in one Australian state. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected linked data from the New South Wales Perinatal Data Collection, Admitted Patient Data Collection, Register of Congenital Conditions, Registry of Birth Deaths and Marriages and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Eight years of data provided a sample size of 258,161 full-term women and their infants. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of neonatal mortality and morbidity as used in the Birthplace in England study. RESULTS: Women who planned to give birth in a birth centre or at home were significantly more likely to have a normal labour and birth compared with women in the labour ward group. There were no statistically significant differences in stillbirth and early neonatal deaths between the three groups, although we had insufficient statistical power to test reliably for these differences. CONCLUSION: This study provides information to assist the development and evaluation of different places of birth across Australia. It is feasible to examine perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth using routinely collected linked data, although very large data sets will be required to measure rare outcomes associated with place of birth in a low risk population, especially in countries like Australia where homebirth rates are low.

The profile of women who consult midwives in Australia.

BACKGROUND: There is no Australian data on the characteristics of women who consult with midwives. AIM: To determine the profile of women who consult midwives in Australia. METHODS: This cross-sectional research was conducted as part of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Participants were the younger (31-36 years) cohort of the ALSWH who completed a survey in 2009, and indicated that they were currently pregnant (n=801). The main outcome measure was consultation with a midwife. FINDINGS: Of the 801 women who indicated that they were currently pregnant at the time of the survey, 19%, 42%, and 70% of women in the first, second and third trimesters respectively had consulted with a midwife. Women were more likely to consult a midwife if they: also consulted with a hospital doctor (OR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.66, 4.40); also consulted with a complementary and alternative medicine practitioner (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.25, 3.03); were depressed (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.28); constipated (OR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.13); or had been diagnosed or treated for hypertension during pregnancy (OR=2.78, 95% CI: 1.27, 6.09). Women were less likely (OR=0.34, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.56) to consult with a midwife if they had private health insurance. CONCLUSION: Women were more likely to consult with midwives in conjunction with consultations with hospital doctors or complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. Women with private health insurance were less likely to consult midwives. More research is necessary to determine the implications of the lack of midwifery care for these women.