Factors associated with health facility deliveries among mothers living in hospital catchment areas in Rukungiri and Kanungu districts, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Health facility deliveries are generally associated with improved maternal and child health outcomes. However, in Uganda, little is known about factors that influence use of health facilities for delivery especially in rural areas. In this study, we assessed the factors associated with health facility deliveries among mothers living within the catchment areas of major health facilities in Rukungiri and Kanungu districts, Uganda. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 894 randomly-sampled mothers within the catchment of two private hospitals in Rukungiri and Kanungu districts. Data were collected on the place of delivery for the most recent child, mothers' sociodemographic and economic characteristics, and health facility water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) status. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) for the determinants of health facility deliveries as well as factors associated with private versus public utilization of health facilities for childbirth. RESULTS: The majority of mothers (90.2%, 806/894) delivered in health facilities. Non-facility deliveries were attributed to faster progression of labour (77.3%, 68/88), lack of transport (31.8%, 28/88), and high cost of hospital delivery (12.5%, 11/88). Being a business-woman [APR = 1.06, 95% CI (1.01-1.11)] and belonging to the highest wealth quintile [APR = 1.09, 95% CI (1.02-1.17)] favoured facility delivery while a higher parity of 3-4 [APR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.88-0.99)] was inversely associated with health facility delivery as compared to parity of 1-2. Factors associated with delivery in a private facility compared to a public facility included availability of highly skilled health workers [APR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.05-1.26)], perceived higher quality of WASH services [APR = 1.11, 95% CI (1.04-1.17)], cost of the delivery [APR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.78-0.92)], and availability of caesarean services [APR = 1.13, 95% CI (1.08-1.19)]. CONCLUSION: Health facility delivery service utilization was high, and associated with engaging in business, belonging to wealthiest quintile and having higher parity. Factors associated with delivery in private facilities included health facility WASH status, cost of services, and availability of skilled workforce and caesarean services.

The opportunity costs of birth in Australia: Hospital resource savings for a post-COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused significant disruptions to health systems globally; however, restricting the family presence during birth saw an increase in women considering community birth options. This study aimed to quantify the hospital resource savings that could occur if all low-risk women in Australia gave birth at home or in birth centers. METHODS: A whole-of-population linked administrative data set containing all women (n = 44 498) who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2015 was reweighted to represent all Australian women giving birth in 2017. A static microsimulation model of woman and infant health service resource use was created based on 2017 data. The model was comprised of a base model, representing "current" care, and a counterfactual model, representing hypothetical scenarios where all low-risk Australian women gave birth at home or in birth centers. RESULTS: If all low-risk women gave birth at home in 2017, cesarean rates would have reduced from 13.4% to 2.7%. Similarly, there would have been 860 fewer inpatient bed days and 10.1 fewer hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. If all women gave birth in birth centers, cesarean rates would have reduced to 6.7%. In addition, over 760 inpatient bed days would have been saved along with 5.6 hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. CONCLUSIONS: Significant health resource savings could occur by shifting low-risk births from hospitals to home birth and birth center services. Greater examination of Australian women's preferences for home birth and birth center birth models of care is needed.

An analysis of media reporting on the closure of freestanding midwifery units in England.

PROBLEM: Despite clinical guidelines and policy promoting choice of place of birth, 14 Freestanding Midwifery Units were closed between 2008 and 2015, closures reported in the media as justified by low use and financial constraints. BACKGROUND: The Birthplace in England Programme found that freestanding midwifery units provided the most cost-effective birthplace for women at low risk of complications. Women planning birth in a freestanding unit were less likely to experience interventions and serious morbidity than those planning obstetric unit birth, with no difference in outcomes for babies. METHODS: This paper uses an interpretative technique developed for policy analysis to explore the representation of these closures in 191 news articles, to explore the public climate in which they occurred. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: The articles focussed on underuse by women and financial constraints on services. Despite the inclusion of service user voices, the power of framing was held by service managers and commissioners. The analysis exposed how neoliberalist and austerity policies have privileged representation of individual consumer choice and market-driven provision as drivers of changes in health services. This normative framing presents the reasons given for closure as hard to refute and cultural norms persist that birth is safest in an obstetric setting, despite evidence to the contrary. CONCLUSION: The rise of neoliberalism and austerity in contemporary Britain has influenced the reform of maternity services, in particular the closure of midwifery units. Justifications given for closure silence other narratives, predominantly from service users, that attempt to present women's choice in terms of rights and a social model of care.

Casas de nacimientos en España. ¿Una opción segura? / Birth Centers in Spain. Are they a safe choice?

Objetivo: Analizar la evidencia científica actual sobre las casas de nacimientos (unidades gestionadas por matronas que ofrecen un entorno similar al hogar y promueven la fisiología del parto), en términos de coste-efectividad, satisfacción y seguridad, tanto materna como neonatal, así como el contexto histórico de las mismas en diferentes países y la situación actual de España en relación con el lugar de nacimiento. Material y método: Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos CINAHL, PubMed, Biblioteca Cochrane y Medline, y en las guías clínicas nacionales e internacionales de distintas organizaciones científicas. Resultados: Las últimas evidencias señalan que parir en casas de nacimientos tiene beneficios obstétricos y de coste-efectividad, mayor tasa de partos espontáneos y menor tasa de intervenciones, así como una mayor satisfacción materna. Conclusiones: Parir en casas de nacimientos es una opción segura que ofrece mejores resultados obstétricos para mujeres de bajo riesgo, es más económica y su creación respondería a una demanda social

Objective: To analyse the current scientific evidence about birth centers (units managed by midwives where a homelike environment and promotion of the physiology of birth is offered) in terms of cost-effectivity, maternal satisfaction and safety for mothers and babies, the historical context of birth centers in different countries and the current birthplace situation in Spain. Method: A research was conducted using the databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Medline. National and International Clinical Guidelines as well as publications from organisations of scientific interest were also consulted. Results: The latest evidence demonstrates that giving birth in birth centers is associated with obstetric benefits, is more cost-effective, contributes to higher rates of normal vaginal deliveries and less interventions as well as higher levels of maternal satisfaction. Conclusions: Giving birth in birth centers is a safe option that provides better obstetrics outcomes to low risk women, it is more economical and it constitutes a response to a social demand

The economic costs of intrapartum care in Tower Hamlets: A comparison between the cost of birth in a freestanding midwifery unit and hospital for women at low risk of obstetric complications.

OBJECTIVE: to compare the economic costs of intrapartum maternity care in an inner city area for 'low risk' women opting to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit compared with those who chose birth in hospital. DESIGN: micro-costing of health service resources used in the intrapartum care of mothers and their babies during the period between admission and discharge, data extracted from clinical notes. SETTING: the Barkantine Birth Centre, a freestanding midwifery unit and the Royal London Hospital's consultant-led obstetric unit, both run by the former Barts and the London NHS Trust in Tower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, England, 2007-2010. PARTICIPANTS: maternity records of 333 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Trust's eligibility criteria for using the Birth Centre. Of these, 167 women started their intrapartum care at the Birth Centre and 166 started care at the Royal London Hospital. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: women who planned their birth at the Birth Centre experienced continuous intrapartum midwifery care, higher rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery, greater use of a birth pool, lower rates of epidural use, higher rates of established breastfeeding and a longer post-natal stay, compared with those who planned for care in the hospital. The total average cost per mother-baby dyad for care where mothers started their intrapartum care at the Birth Centre was £1296.23, approximately £850 per patient less than the average cost per mother and baby who received all their care at the Royal London Hospital. These costs reflect intrapartum throughput using bottom up costing per patient, from admission to discharge, including transfer, but excluding occupancy rates and the related running costs of the units. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the study showed that intrapartum throughput in the Birth Centre could be considered cost-minimising when compared to hospital. Modelling the financial viability of midwifery units at a local level is important because it can inform the appropriate provision of these services. This finding from this study contribute a local perspective and thus further weight to the evidence from the Birthplace Programme in support of freestanding midwifery unit care for women without obstetric complications.

Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is demand from women for alternatives to giving birth in a standard hospital setting however access to these services is limited. This systematic review examines the literature relating to the economic evaluations of birth setting for women at low risk of complications. METHODS: Searches of the literature to identify economic evaluations of different birth settings of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EconLit, Business Source Complete and Maternity and Infant care. Relevant English language publications were chosen using keywords and MeSH terms between 1995 and 2015. Inclusion criteria included studies focussing on the comparison of birth setting. Data were extracted with respect to study design, perspective, PICO principles, and resource use and cost data. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, the USA, and the UK. Four studies compared costs between homebirth and the hospital setting and the remaining seven focussed on the cost of birth centre care and the hospital setting. Six studies used a cost-effectiveness analysis and the remaining five studies used cost analysis and cost comparison methods. Eight of the 11 studies found a cost saving in the alternative settings. Two found no difference in the cost of the alternative settings and one found an increase in birth centre care. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies that compare the cost of birth setting. The variation in the results may be attributable to the cost data collection processes, difference in health systems and differences in which costs were included. A better understanding of the cost of birth setting is needed to inform policy makers and service providers.

The Dutch Birth Centre Study: study design of a programmatic evaluation of the effect of birth centre care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Birth centres are regarded as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth, assisted by a midwife and a maternity care assistant. In case of (threatening) complications referral to a maternity unit of a hospital is necessary. In the last decade up to 20 different birth centres have been instituted in the Netherlands. This increase in birth centres is attributed to various reasons such as a safe and easy accessible place of birth, organizational efficiency in integration of care and direct access to obstetric hospital care if needed, and better use of maternity care assistance. Birth centres are assumed to offer increased integration and quality of care and thus to contribute to better perinatal and maternal outcomes. So far there is no evidence for this assumption as no previous studies of birth centres have been carried out in the Netherlands. DESIGN: The aims are 1) Identification of birth centres and measuring integration of organization and care 2) Measuring the quality of birth centre care 3) Effects of introducing a birth centre on regional quality and provision of care 4) Cost-effectiveness analysis 5) In depth longitudinal analysis of the organization and processes in birth centres. Different qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in the different sub studies. The design is a multi-centre, multi-method study, including surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of registration data and documents. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will enable users of maternity care, professionals, policy makers and health care financers to make an informed choice about the kind of birth location that is appropriate for their needs and wishes.

Implementation of the partograph in India's JSY cash transfer programme for facility births: a mixed methods study in Madhya Pradesh province.

OBJECTIVES: To study implementation of partograph use to monitor labour in facilities providing the JSY (Janani Suraksha Yojana) cash transfer programme for facility births in India by determining (1) adherence to partograph use, (2) staff abilities at partograph use and (3) staff responsiveness to the policy on partograph use. DESIGN: A mixed methods study using Carroll's framework for implementation fidelity. Methods include (1) obstetric case record review, (2) a vignette-based survey among nurse midwives and (3) interviews with staff. SETTING: Routine use of the partograph is recommended to monitor progress of labour in most low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), including India, although currently available evidence in this regard is insufficient. This study was conducted in the context of the highly successful JSY programme in three districts of Madhya Pradesh province. PARTICIPANTS: 73 different level JSY programme facilities participated in the record review, 233 nurse midwives at these facilities participated in the vignette survey and a total of 11 doctors and midwives participated in the interviews. RESULTS: The partograph was used in 6% of the 1466 records reviewed. The staff obtained a median score of 1.08 (maximum of 10) at competence in plotting a partograph. Three themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) partographs are used rarely and retrospectively; (2) training does not support correct use of the partograph; and (3) partographs can be useful but are not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation fidelity of partograph use in the JSY programme is low. Successful implementation of the partograph can result in improved quality of care in the JSY programme only if potential moderators to its adherence, such as training, supervision, staff 'buy in' and practice environment are addressed so that staff find a conducive practice environment in which to use the partograph and women find it beneficial to present early in labour.

Tibetan women's perspectives and satisfaction with delivery care in a rural birth center.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic characteristics and factors involved in Tibetan women's decisions to deliver at the Tibetan Birth and Training Center (TBTC) in rural western China. METHODS: In the present mixed-methods study, a random sample of married women who delivered at the TBTC between June 2011 and June 2012 were surveyed. Additionally, four focus group discussions were conducted among married women living in the TBTC catchment area. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and dominant themes were identified. RESULTS: In focus group discussions, women (n=33) reported that improved roads and transportation meant that access to health facilities was easier than in the past. Although some of the 114 survey participants voiced negative perceptions of healthcare facilities and providers, 99 (86.8%) indicated that they chose to deliver at the TBTC because they preferred to have a doctor present. Most women (75 [65.8%]) said their mother/mother-in-law made the final decision about delivery location. Women valued logistic and cultural aspects of the TBTC, and 108 (94.7%) said that they would recommend the TBTC to a friend. CONCLUSION: Study participants preferred delivery care that combines safety and comfort. The findings highlight avenues for further promotion of facility delivery among populations with lower rates of skilled deliveries.

Potential Medicaid cost savings from maternity care based at a freestanding birth center.

OBJECTIVES: Medicaid pays for about half the births in the United States, at very high cost. Compared to usual obstetrical care, care by midwives at a birth center could reduce costs to the Medicaid program. This study draws on information from a previous study of the outcomes of birth center care to determine whether such care reduces Medicaid costs for low income women. METHODS: The study uses results from a study of maternal and infant outcomes at the Family Health and Birth Center in Washington, D.C. Costs to Medicaid are derived from birth center data and from other national sources of the cost of obstetrical care. RESULTS: We estimate that birth center care could save an average of $1,163 per birth (2008 constant dollars), or $11.6 million per 10,000 births per year. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid is the leading payer for maternity services. As Medicaid faces continuing cost increases and budget constraints, policy makers should consider a larger role for midwives and birth centers in maternity care for low-risk Medicaid pregnant women.

Survey of women's experiences of care in a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area of London, England: 2. Specific aspects of care.

OBJECTIVE: to describe and compare women's experiences of specific aspects of maternity care before and after the opening of the Barkantine Birth Centre, a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area. DESIGN: telephone surveys undertaken in late pregnancy and about six weeks after birth. Two separate waves of interviews were conducted, Phase 1 before the birth centre opened and Phase 2 after it had opened. SETTING: Tower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, 2007-2010. PARTICIPANTS: 620 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Barts and the London Trust's eligibility criteria for using the birth centre. Of these, 259 women were recruited to Phase 1 and 361 to Phase 2. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: the replies women gave show marked differences between the model of care in the birth centre and that at the obstetric unit at the Royal London Hospital with respect to experiences of care and specific practices. Women who initially booked for birth centre care were more likely to attend antenatal classes and find them useful and were less likely to be induced. Women who started labour care at the birth centre in spontaneous labour were more likely to use non-pharmacological methods of pain relief, most notably water and less likely to use pethidine than women who started care at the hospital. They were more likely to be able to move around in labour and less likely to have their membranes ruptured or have continuous CTG. They were more likely to be told to push spontaneously when they needed to rather than under directed pushing and more likely to report that they had been able to choose their position for birth and deliver in places other than the bed, in contrast to the situation at the hospital. The majority of women who had a spontaneous onset of labour delivered vaginally, with 28.6 per cent of women at the birth centre but no one at the hospital delivering in water. Primiparous women who delivered at the birth centre were less likely to have an episiotomy. Most women who delivered at the birth centre reported that they had chosen whether or not to have a physiological third stage, whereas a worrying proportion at the hospital reported that they had not had a choice. A higher proportion of women at the birth centre reported skin to skin contact with their baby in the first two hours after birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: significant differences were reported between the hospital and the birth centre in practices and information given to the women, with lower rates of intervention, more choice and significant differences in women's experiences. This case study of a single inner-city freestanding midwifery unit, linked to the Birthplace in England Research Programme, indicates that this model of care also leads to greater choice and a better experience for women who opted for it.

Survey of women's experiences of care in a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area of London, England. 1: Methods and women's overall ratings of care.

OBJECTIVE: to describe and compare women's choices and experiences of maternity care before and after the opening of the Barkantine Birth Centre, a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area. DESIGN: telephone surveys undertaken in late pregnancy and about six weeks after birth in two separate time periods, Phase 1 before the birth centre opened and Phase 2 after it had opened. SETTING: Tower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, England, 2007-2010. PARTICIPANTS: 620 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Barts and the London NHS Trust's eligibility criteria for using the birth centre. Of these, 259 women were recruited to Phase 1 and 361 to Phase 2. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: women who satisfied the criteria for birth centre care and who booked antenatally for care at the birth centre were significantly more likely to rate their care as good or very good overall than corresponding women who also satisfied these criteria but booked initially at the hospital. Women who started labour care in spontaneous labour at the birth centre were significantly more likely to be cared for by a midwife they had already met, have one to one care in labour and have the same midwife with them throughout their labour. They were also significantly more likely to report that the staff were kind and understanding, that they were treated with respect and dignity and that their privacy was respected. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: this survey in an inner city area showed that women who chose the freestanding midwifery unit care had positive experiences to report. Taken together with the findings of the Birthplace Programme, it adds further weight to the evidence in support of freestanding midwifery unit care for women without obstetric complications.

India's Conditional Cash Transfer Programme (the JSY) to Promote Institutional Birth: Is There an Association between Institutional Birth Proportion and Maternal Mortality?

BACKGROUND: India accounts for 19% of global maternal deaths, three-quarters of which come from nine states. In 2005, India launched a conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), to reduce maternal mortality ratio (MMR) through promotion of institutional births. JSY is the largest CCT in the world. In the nine states with relatively lower socioeconomic levels, JSY provides a cash incentive to all women on birthing in health institution. The cash incentive is intended to reduce financial barriers to accessing institutional care for delivery. Increased institutional births are expected to reduce MMR. Thus, JSY is expected to (a) increase institutional births and (b) reduce MMR in states with high proportions of institutional births. We examine the association between (a) service uptake, i.e., institutional birth proportions and (b) health outcome, i.e., MMR. METHOD: Data from Sample Registration Survey of India were analysed to describe trends in proportion of institutional births before (2005) and during (2006-2010) the implementation of the JSY. Data from Annual Health Survey (2010-2011) for all 284 districts in above- mentioned nine states were analysed to assess relationship between MMR and institutional births. RESULTS: Proportion of institutional births increased from a pre-programme average of 20% to 49% in 5 years (p<0.05). In bivariate analysis, proportion of institutional births had a small negative correlation with district MMR (r = -0.11).The multivariate regression model did not establish significant association between institutional birth proportions and MMR [CI: -0.10, 0.68]. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirmed that JSY succeeded in raising institutional births significantly. However, we were unable to detect a significant association between institutional birth proportion and MMR. This indicates that high institutional birth proportions that JSY has achieved are of themselves inadequate to reduce MMR. Other factors including improved quality of care at institutions are required for intended effect.

Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth. DESIGN: Economic evaluation with individual level data from the Birthplace national prospective cohort study. SETTING: 142 of 147 trusts providing home birth services, 53 of 56 freestanding midwifery units, 43 of 51 alongside midwifery units, and a random sample of 36 of 180 obstetric units, stratified by unit size and geographical region, in England, over varying periods of time within the study period 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010. PARTICIPANTS: 64,538 women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour. INTERVENTIONS: Planned birth in four alternative settings: at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per adverse perinatal outcome avoided, adverse maternal morbidity avoided, and additional normal birth. The non-parametric bootstrap method was used to generate net monetary benefits and construct cost effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative thresholds for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The total unadjusted mean costs were £1066, £1435, £1461, and £1631 for births planned at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units, respectively (equivalent to about €1274, $1701; €1715, $2290; €1747, $2332; and €1950, $2603). Overall, and for multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness when perinatal outcomes were considered. There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a cost effectiveness threshold of £20 000 declining to 0.63. With regards to maternal outcomes in nulliparous and multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For multiparous women at low risk of complications, planned birth at home was the most cost effective option. For nulliparous low risk women, planned birth at home is still likely to be the most cost effective option but is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes.

India's JSY cash transfer program for maternal health: who participates and who doesn't--a report from Ujjain district.

BACKGROUND: India launched a national conditional cash transfer program, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), aimed at reducing maternal mortality by promoting institutional delivery in 2005. It provides a cash incentive to women who give birth in public health facilities. This paper studies the extent of program uptake, reasons for participation/non participation, factors associated with non uptake of the program, and the role played by a program volunteer, accredited social health activist (ASHA), among mothers in Ujjain district in Madhya Pradesh, India. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to May 2011 among women giving birth in 30 villages in Ujjain district. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 418 women who delivered in 2009. Socio-demographic and pregnancy related characteristics, role of the ASHA during delivery, receipt of the incentive, and reasons for place of delivery were collected. Multinomial regression analysis was used to identify predictors for the outcome variables; program delivery, private facility delivery, or a home delivery. RESULTS: The majority of deliveries (318/418; 76%) took place within the JSY program; 81% of all mothers below poverty line delivered in the program. Ninety percent of the women had prior knowledge of the program. Most program mothers reported receiving the cash incentive within two weeks of delivery. The ASHA's influence on the mother's decision on where to deliver appeared limited. Women who were uneducated, multiparious or lacked prior knowledge of the JSY program were significantly more likely to deliver at home. CONCLUSION: In this study, a large proportion of women delivered under the program. Most mothers reporting timely receipt of the cash transfer. Nevertheless, there is still a subset of mothers delivering at home, who do not or cannot access emergency obstetric care under the program and remain at risk of maternal death.