Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low-risk planned home and hospital births

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorde Jonge, A.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Goes, B.
dc.contributor.authorRavelli, A.
dc.contributor.authorAmelink-Verburg, M.
dc.contributor.authorMol, B.
dc.contributor.authorNijhuis, J.
dc.contributor.authorBennebroek Gravenhorst, J.
dc.contributor.authorBuitendijk, S.
dc.date.issued2009
dc.descriptionArticle first published online: 15 APR 2009
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity between planned home and planned hospital births, among low-risk women who started their labour in primary care. Design: A nationwide cohort study. Setting: The entire Netherlands. Population: A total of 529 688 low-risk women who were in primary midwife-led care at the onset of labour. Of these, 321 307 (60.7%) intended to give birth at home, 163 261 (30.8%) planned to give birth in hospital and for 45 120 (8.5%), the intended place of birth was unknown. Methods: Analysis of national perinatal and neonatal registration data, over a period of 7 years. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics. Main outcome measures: Intrapartum death, intrapartum and neonatal death within 24 hours after birth, intrapartum and neonatal death within 7 days and neonatal admission to an intensive care unit. Results: No significant differences were found between planned home and planned hospital birth (adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals: intrapartum death 0.97 (0.69 to 1.37), intrapartum death and neonatal death during the first 24 hours 1.02 (0.77 to 1.36), intrapartum death and neonatal death up to 7 days 1.00 (0.78 to 1.27), admission to neonatal intensive care unit 1.00 (0.86 to 1.16). Conclusions: This study shows that planning a home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low-risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitates this choice through the availability of well-trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityA de Jonge, BY van der Goes, ACJ Ravelli, MP Amelink-Verburg, BW Mol, JG Nijhuis, J Bennebroek Gravenhorst, SE Buitendijk
dc.identifier.citationBJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2009; 116(9):1177-1184
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x
dc.identifier.issn1470-0328
dc.identifier.issn1471-0528
dc.identifier.orcidMol, B. [0000-0001-6887-0262] [0000-0001-8337-550X]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/86313
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.rights© 2009 The Authors
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x
dc.subjectMidwifery; perinatal mortality; pregnancy outcome
dc.titlePerinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low-risk planned home and hospital births
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications