Rachel Rowe

Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. Participants 64 538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and “booked” pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). Results There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). Conclusions The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

Social and ethnic differences in attendance for antenatal care in England.

OBJECTIVES Evidence about sociodemographic factors associated with late attendance for antenatal care in the UK is of poor quality. This study aimed to identify any social or ethnic differences in access to antenatal care, and to quantify the effect of any such differences using data collected in a survey of womens experiences of antenatal screening. STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional survey using a postal questionnaire. METHODS A stratified clustered random sampling strategy was used. Hospitals in England were stratified according to ethnic mix. In order to ensure inclusion of an adequate number of women from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds, hospitals with >or= 15% of women of BME origin were oversampled. Pregnant women aged >or= 16 years, receiving care in 15 participating hospitals, were sent a postal questionnaire at 27-31 weeks of gestation. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) comparing social and ethnic groups for attendance for antenatal care, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS In total, 839 women (57%) returned completed questionnaires. Compared with all women giving birth in 2005 in England and Wales, the survey sample contained fewer women aged <20 years (5.8% vs 6.9%), more women aged >35 years (24.1% vs 19.6%) and fewer women who were born outside the UK (14.8% vs 20.8%). Five percent of responders were late attenders for their first antenatal appointment. The odds of late initiation of antenatal care were higher for women born outside the UK [OR 4.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25-8.52; P=0.0004] and for women living without a husband/partner (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.81-4.16; P=0.0002). In total, 2.5% of women were late attenders for their booking appointment. The odds of late booking were higher for Black women (OR 5.92, 95% CI 2.97-11.83) and women living without a husband/partner (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.97-3.93; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS A small proportion of women initiate and/or book late for antenatal care. This study provides recent, good-quality evidence that women born outside the UK and those living without a husband/partner may be at particular risk of late attendance for antenatal care.

Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review

Objective To review trials of the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care.

Offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds

To compare offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds.

The impact of maternal obesity on intrapartum outcomes in otherwise low risk women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

To evaluate the impact of maternal BMI on intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes that may influence choice of planned birth setting in healthy women without additional risk factors.

Transfers of women planning birth in midwifery units: data from the Birthplace prospective cohort study

Please cite this paper as: Rowe R, Fitzpatrick R, Hollowell J, Kurinczuk J. Transfers of women planning birth in midwifery units: data from the Birthplace prospective cohort study. BJOG 2012;119:1081–1090.

Women's experience of transfer from midwifery unit to hospital obstetric unit during labour: a qualitative interview study.

BackgroundMidwifery units offer care to women with straightforward pregnancies, but unforeseen complications can arise during labour or soon after birth, necessitating transfer to a hospital obstetric unit. In England, 21% of women planning birth in freestanding midwifery units are transferred; in alongside units, the transfer rate is 26%. There is little high quality contemporary evidence on women’s experience of transfer.MethodsWe carried out a qualitative interview study, using semi-structured interviews, with women who had been transferred from a midwifery unit (freestanding or alongside) in England up to 12 months prior to interview. Maximum variation sampling was used. Interviews with 30 women took place between March 2009 and March 2010. Thematic analysis using constant comparison and exploration of deviant cases was carried out.ResultsMost women hoped for or expected a natural birth and did not expect to be transferred. Transfer was disappointing for many; sensitive and supportive care and preparation for the need for transfer helped women adjust to their changing circumstances. A small number of women, often in the context of prolonged labour, described transfer as a relief. For women transferred from freestanding units, the ambulance journey was a “limbo” period. Women wondered, worried or were fearful about what was to come and could be passive participants who felt like they were being “transported” rather than cared for. For many this was a direct contrast with the care they experienced in the midwifery unit. After transfer, most women appreciated the opportunity to talk about their experience to make sense of what happened and help them plan for future pregnancies, but did not necessarily seek this out if it was not offered.ConclusionsTransfer affects a significant minority of women planning birth in midwifery units and is therefore a concern for women and midwives. Transfer is not expected by women, but sensitive care and preparation can help women adjust to changing circumstances. Particular sensitivity around decision-making may be required by midwives caring for women during prolonged labour. Some apparently straightforward changes to practice have the potential to make an important difference to women’s experience of ambulance transfer.

The Oxford Worries about Labour Scale: Women's experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth

This study describes the measurement characteristics of a short (9-item) multi-dimensional measure of worry about labour and birth, the Oxford Worries about Labour Scale (OWLS-9), and its use in a large-scale study of womens experience of care. The data utilised were from 2960 women who participated in a national survey of a random sample of women who had recently given birth in England. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three sub-scales within the instrument assessing specific concerns about labour pain and distress, pre-labour uncertainty and interventions. The characteristics of each sub-scale revealed good divergent and discriminant validity. Further, the labour and distress subscale score was found to be significantly associated with both self-reported ‘baby blues’ and self-reported postnatal depression. The study findings suggest that the three sub-scales embedded can be utilised or the OWLS-9 employed as a full-scale instrument. Used antenatally, the OWLS-9 and OWLS sub-scales may offer a relevant and clinically useful measure of worry about labour and birth. Limitations of the study are discussed and the direction of future research indicated.

The effect of maternal age and planned place of birth on intrapartum outcomes in healthy women with straightforward pregnancies: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

Objectives To describe the relationship between maternal age and intrapartum outcomes in ‘low-risk’ women; and to evaluate whether the relationship between maternal age and intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes differs by planned place of birth. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Obstetric units (OUs), midwifery units and planned home births in England. Participants 63 371 women aged over 16 without known medical or obstetric risk factors, with singleton pregnancies, planning vaginal birth. Methods Log Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between maternal age, modelled as a continuous and categorical variable, and risk of intrapartum interventions and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Main outcome measures Intrapartum caesarean section, instrumental delivery, syntocinon augmentation and a composite measure of maternal interventions/adverse outcomes requiring obstetric care encompassing augmentation, instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section, general anaesthesia, blood transfusion, third-degree/fourth-degree tear, maternal admission; adverse perinatal outcome (encompassing neonatal unit admission or perinatal death). Results Interventions and adverse maternal outcomes requiring obstetric care generally increased with age, particularly in nulliparous women. For nulliparous women aged 16–40, the risk of experiencing an intervention or adverse outcome requiring obstetric care increased more steeply with age in planned non-OU births than in planned OU births (adjusted RR 1.21 per 5-year increase in age, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.25 vs adjusted RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.15) but absolute risks were lower in planned non-OU births at all ages. The risk of neonatal unit admission or perinatal death was significantly raised in nulliparous women aged 40+ relative to women aged 25–29 (adjusted RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.09). Conclusions At all ages, ‘low-risk’ women who plan birth in a non-OU setting tend to experience lower intervention rates than comparable women who plan birth in an OU. Younger nulliparous women appear to benefit more from this reduction than older nulliparous women.

Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

BackgroundImmersion in water during labour is an important non-pharmacological method to manage labour pain, particularly in midwifery-led care settings where pharmacological methods are limited. This study investigates the association between immersion for pain relief and transfer before birth and other maternal outcomes.MethodsA prospective cohort study of 16,577 low risk nulliparous women planning birth at home, in a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) or in an alongside midwifery unit (AMU) in England between April 2008 and April 2010.ResultsImmersion in water for pain relief was common; 50% in planned home births, 54% in FMUs and 38% in AMUs. Immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of transfer before birth for births planned at home (adjusted RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.99), in FMUs (adjusted RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.50–0.70) and in AMUs (adjusted RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.69–0.88). For births planned in FMUs, immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of intrapartum caesarean section (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44–0.84) and a higher chance of a straightforward vaginal birth (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.15). These beneficial effects were not seen in births planned at home or AMUs.ConclusionsImmersion of water for pain relief was associated with a significant reduction in risk of transfer before birth for nulliparous women. Overall, immersion in water was associated with fewer interventions during labour. The effect varied across birth settings with least effect in planned home births and a larger effect observed for planned FMU births.