Midwife-attended planned home births versus planned hospital births in Spain: Maternal and neonatal outcomes

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Lucia ALCARAZ-VIDAL , Ramon ESCURIET , Roser PALAU-COSTAFREDA , Fatima LEON-LARIOS , Gemma ROBLEDA
{"title":"Midwife-attended planned home births versus planned hospital births in Spain: Maternal and neonatal outcomes","authors":"Lucia ALCARAZ-VIDAL ,&nbsp;Ramon ESCURIET ,&nbsp;Roser PALAU-COSTAFREDA ,&nbsp;Fatima LEON-LARIOS ,&nbsp;Gemma ROBLEDA","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2024.104101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The debate on the safety and outcomes of home versus hospital births highlights the need for evidence-based evaluations of these birthing settings, particularly in Catalonia where both options are available.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To compare sociodemographic characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes between low-risk women opting for home versus hospital births in Catalonia, Spain.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This observational cross-sectional study analysed 3,463 low-risk births between 2016 and 2018, including 2,713 hospital and 750 home births. Researchers collected sociodemographic data, birthing processes, and outcomes, using statistical analysis to explore differences between the settings.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Notable differences emerged: Women choosing home births typically had higher education levels and were predominantly Spanish. They were 3.43 times more likely to have a spontaneous birth and significantly less likely to undergo instrumental births than those in hospitals. Home births were associated with higher utilization of non-pharmacological analgesia and a more pronounced tendency to iniciate breastfeeding within the first hour post birth and stronger inclination towards breastfeeding. Hospital births, conversely, showed higher use of the lithotomy position and epidural analgesia. There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and implication for practice</h3><p>Home births managed by midwives offered better obstetric and neonatal outcomes for low-risk women than hospital births. These results suggest home birth as a safe, viable option that promotes natural birthing processes and reduces medical interventions. The study supports the integration of midwife-led home birth into public health policies, affirming its benefits for maternal and neonatal health.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824001840/pdfft?md5=1f9946b7e6ea8b3d31bfd834c3bc636c&pid=1-s2.0-S0266613824001840-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824001840","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The debate on the safety and outcomes of home versus hospital births highlights the need for evidence-based evaluations of these birthing settings, particularly in Catalonia where both options are available.

Aim

To compare sociodemographic characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes between low-risk women opting for home versus hospital births in Catalonia, Spain.

Methods

This observational cross-sectional study analysed 3,463 low-risk births between 2016 and 2018, including 2,713 hospital and 750 home births. Researchers collected sociodemographic data, birthing processes, and outcomes, using statistical analysis to explore differences between the settings.

Findings

Notable differences emerged: Women choosing home births typically had higher education levels and were predominantly Spanish. They were 3.43 times more likely to have a spontaneous birth and significantly less likely to undergo instrumental births than those in hospitals. Home births were associated with higher utilization of non-pharmacological analgesia and a more pronounced tendency to iniciate breastfeeding within the first hour post birth and stronger inclination towards breastfeeding. Hospital births, conversely, showed higher use of the lithotomy position and epidural analgesia. There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusions and implication for practice

Home births managed by midwives offered better obstetric and neonatal outcomes for low-risk women than hospital births. These results suggest home birth as a safe, viable option that promotes natural birthing processes and reduces medical interventions. The study supports the integration of midwife-led home birth into public health policies, affirming its benefits for maternal and neonatal health.

西班牙助产士参与的计划内家庭分娩与计划内医院分娩:产妇和新生儿的结局。
背景:目的:比较西班牙加泰罗尼亚地区选择在家分娩和医院分娩的低风险产妇的社会人口学特征、孕产妇和新生儿结局:这项观察性横断面研究分析了 2016 年至 2018 年间的 3463 例低风险分娩,包括 2713 例住院分娩和 750 例在家分娩。研究人员收集了社会人口学数据、分娩过程和结果,并通过统计分析探讨了不同分娩环境之间的差异:出现了明显的差异:选择在家分娩的妇女通常受教育程度较高,且主要是西班牙人。与医院相比,她们自然分娩的几率要高出 3.43 倍,而使用器械分娩的几率要低得多。在家中分娩时,非药物镇痛的使用率更高,在产后一小时内开始母乳喂养的趋势更明显,母乳喂养的倾向也更强烈。相反,在医院分娩的产妇则更多地采用平卧位和硬膜外镇痛。两组新生儿的预后无明显差异:与医院分娩相比,由助产士管理的家庭分娩能为低危产妇提供更好的产科和新生儿预后。这些结果表明,在家分娩是一种安全、可行的选择,可促进自然分娩过程并减少医疗干预。这项研究支持将助产士主导的家庭分娩纳入公共卫生政策,肯定了家庭分娩对产妇和新生儿健康的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Midwifery
Midwifery 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
221
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信