Maternity Policy and a Generation of Anxiety and Fear

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.

Background This population-based cohort study aimed to investigate the demographic and psychosocial characteristics associated with fear of childbirth and the relative importance of such fear as a predictor of elective caesarean section. Methods A sample of 1789 women from the Akershus Birth Cohort in Norway provided data collected by three self-administered questionnaires at 17 and 32 weeks of pregnancy and 8 weeks postpartum. Information about the participants’ childbirths was obtained from the hospital records. Results Eight percent of the women reported fear of delivery, defined as a score of ≥85 on the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire. Using multivariable logistic regression models, a previous negative overall birth experience exerted the strongest impact on fear of childbirth, followed by impaired mental health and poor social support. Fear of childbirth was strongly associated with a preference for elective caesarean section (aOR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.9–7.3) whereas the association of fear with performance of caesarean delivery was weaker (aOR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.2–4.9). The vast majority (87 %) of women with fear of childbirth did not, however, receive a caesarean section. By contrast, a previous negative overall birth experience was highly predictive of elective caesarean section (aOR 8.1, 95 % CI 3.9–16.7) and few women without such experiences did request caesarean section. Conclusions Results suggest that women with fear of childbirth may have identifiable vulnerability characteristics, such as poor mental health and poor social support. Results also emphasize the need to focus on the subjective experience of the birth to prevent fear of childbirth and elective caesarean sections on maternal request. Regarding the relationship with social support, causality has to be interpreted cautiously, as social support was measured at 8 weeks postpartum only.

Background English maternity care policy has supported offering women choice of birth setting for over twenty years, but only 13% of women in England currently give birth in settings other than obstetric units (OUs). It is unclear why uptake of non-OU settings for birth remains relatively low. This paper presents a synthesis of qualitative evidence which explores influences on women’s experiences of birth place choice, preference and decision-making from the perspectives of women using maternity services. Methods Qualitative evidence synthesis of UK research published January 1992-March 2015, using a ‘best-fit’ framework approach. Searches were run in seven electronic data bases applying a comprehensive search strategy. Thematic framework analysis was used to synthesise extracted data from included studies. Results Twenty-four papers drawing on twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis identified support for the key framework themes. Women’s experiences of choosing or deciding where to give birth were influenced by whether they received information about available options and about the right to choose, women’s preferences for different services and their attributes, previous birth experiences, views of family, friends and health care professionals and women’s beliefs about risk and safety. The synthesis additionally identified that women’s access to choice of place of birth during the antenatal period varied. Planning to give birth in OU was straightforward, but although women considering birth in a setting other than hospital OU were sometimes well-supported, they also encountered obstacles and described needing to ‘counter the negativity’ surrounding home birth or birth in midwife-led settings. Conclusions Over the period covered by the review, it was straightforward for low risk women to opt for hospital birth in the UK. Accessing home birth was more complex and contested. The evidence on freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) is more limited, but suggests that women wanting to opt for an FMU birth experienced similar barriers. The extent to which women experienced similar problems accessing alongside midwifery units (AMUs) is unclear. Women’s preferences for different birth options, particularly for ‘hospital’ vs non-hospital settings, are shaped by their pre-existing values, beliefs and experience, and not all women are open to all birth settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.