ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
Are freestanding midwifery units a safe alternative to obstetric units for low-risk, primiparous childbirth? An analysis of effect differences by parity in a matched cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes of childbirth care in a Freestanding Birth Centre.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Observational
- [Monitoring and evaluation indicators of Freestanding Birth Centers: results of the study Births in Brazilian Birthing Centers].Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Article
- Midwife-led birthing centres in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uganda: an economic evaluation of case study sites.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Problems Experienced by the Mothers in Post-Cesarean Period: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Advancing quality and safety of perinatal services in India: opportunities for effective midwifery integration.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Homebirth in Hungary: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A true choice of place of birth? Swiss women's access to birth hospitals and birth centers.PloS one · 2022Article
- Understanding the conditions that influence the roles of midwives in Ontario, Canada's health system: an embedded single-case study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Defining and describing birth centres in the Netherlands - a component study of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Freestanding Midwife-Led Units: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrapartum complications and the use of obstetric interventions are more common in primiparous childbirth than in multiparous childbirth, leading to concern about out of hospital birth for primiparous women. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the effect of birthplace on perinatal and maternal morbidity and the use of obstetric interventions differed by parity among low-risk women intending to give birth in a freestanding midwifery unit or in an obstetric unit in the North Denmark Region.
methodsThe study is a secondary analysis of data from a matched cohort study including 839 low-risk women intending birth in a freestanding midwifery unit (primary participants) and 839 low-risk women intending birth in an obstetric unit (individually matched control group). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Conditional logistic regression analysis was applied to compute odds ratios and effect ratios with 95% confidence intervals for matched pairs stratified by parity.
resultsOn no outcome did the effect of birthplace differ significantly between primiparous and multiparous women. Compared with their counterparts intending birth in an obstetric unit, both primiparous and multiparous women intending birth in a freestanding midwifery unit were significantly more likely to have an uncomplicated, spontaneous birth with good outcomes for mother and infant and less likely to require caesarean section, instrumental delivery, augmented labour or epidural analgesia (although for caesarean section this trend did not attain statistical significance for multiparous women). Perinatal outcomes were comparable between the two birth settings irrespective of parity. Compared to multiparas, transfer rates were substantially higher for primiparas, but fell over time while rates for multiparas remained stable.
conclusionsFreestanding midwifery units appear to confer significant advantages over obstetric units to both primiparous and multiparous mothers, while their infants are equally safe in both settings. Our findings thus support the provision of care in freestanding midwifery units as an alternative to care in obstetric units for all low-risk women regardless of parity. In view of the global rise in caesarean section rates, we consider it an important finding that freestanding midwifery units show potential for reducing first-birth caesarean.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.