Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25884308›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

The influence of preferred place of birth on the course of pregnancy and labor among healthy nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study.

Tamar M van Haaren-ten Haken, Marijke Hendrix, Luc J Smits, Marianne J Nieuwenhuijze, Johan L Severens, Raymond G de Vries, Jan G Nijhuis

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tamar M van Haaren-ten HakenResearch Centre for Midwifery Science Maastricht, Zuyd University, PO Box 1256, 6201 BG, Maastricht, The Netherlands. t.vanhaaren@av-m.nl.
Marijke HendrixResearch Centre for Midwifery Science Maastricht, Zuyd University, PO Box 1256, 6201 BG, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.hendrix@av-m.nl.
Luc J SmitsDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. luc.smits@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Marianne J NieuwenhuijzeResearch Centre for Midwifery Science Maastricht, Zuyd University, PO Box 1256, 6201 BG, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.nieuwenhuijze@av-m.nl.
Johan L SeverensErasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Health Policy and Management, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. severens@bmg.eur.nl.
Raymond G de VriesResearch Centre for Midwifery Science Maastricht, Zuyd University, PO Box 1256, 6201 BG, Maastricht, The Netherlands. raymond.devries@av-m.nl.
Jan G NijhuisDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology/GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jg.nijhuis@mumc.nl.
Zuyd University of Applied Sciences · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost studies on birth settings investigate the association between planned place of birth at the start of labor and birth outcomes and intervention rates. To optimize maternity care it also is important to pay attention to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores the association between the initial preferred place of birth and model of care, and the course of pregnancy and labor in low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands.

methodsAs part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007-2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 182). Data were obtained by a questionnaire before 20 weeks of gestation and by medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth.

resultsLow-risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife-led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.25-0.66). Preferring a birth with midwife-led care - both at home and in hospital - was associated with lower odds of induced labor (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.95 respectively OR 0.42 95% CI 0.21-0.85) and epidural analgesia (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.18-0.56 respectively OR 0.34 95% CI 0.19-0.62) compared to preferring a birth with obstetrician-led care. In addition, women who preferred a home birth were less likely to experience augmentation of labor (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.32-0.93) and narcotic analgesia (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.21-0.79) compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care. We observed no significant association between preferred place of birth and mode of birth.

conclusionsNulliparous women who initially preferred a home birth were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy. Women who initially preferred a birth with midwife-led care - both at home and in hospital - experienced lower rates of interventions during labor. Although some differences can be attributed to the model of care, we suggest that characteristics and attitudes of women themselves also play an important role.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesObstetric Labor ComplicationsAdultBirthing CentersCohort StudiesFemaleHome ChildbirthHumansMidwiferyModels, OrganizationalNetherlandsObstetricsParityPatient PreferencePerinatal CarePractice Patterns, Nurses'

Identifiers

PMID25884308
PMCPMC4342224
OpenAlexW2072494754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.