Review of Cochrane report: Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

ISSN 2516-5852 (Online)

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 3

Image of Catherine Hart

By Catharine Hart

Cochrane report: Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

What is it: An updated review of randomised controlled trials that compare birth in hospital with planned home birth in low‐risk women. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, previously updated in 2012.

Who published it: The Cochrane Library

Publication date: 08 March 2023

Key points:

This review tries to discern the benefits and harms of hospital birth compared with planned home birth for low-risk women. This is in the context of a well-organised home birth service, backed up by medical support in case of transfer to hospital, as in the UK.

The authors searched databases for new studies to include. However, after applying exclusion criteria, only one new study with 11 participants was found to be included in this update. Clearly, such a low number of participants does not allow any conclusions to be drawn that could be generalised more widely. The authors also felt that the study was at risk of bias. They conclude that at present it is uncertain whether planned hospital birth reduces mortality or other important outcomes and further research is needed.

Extremely large trials are required for good quality evidence relating to mortality rates; the authors acknowledge that this will hardly ever be achievable. Randomised controlled trials studying the “effect” of place of birth remove any agency or choice about place of birth from the birthing woman. It is therefore good to see the authors of this review taking parents’ views into account that these kinds of trials are “no longer appropriate”. The authors recommend including evidence from observational studies instead (where data is looked at after the birth has happened, rather than randomising into two groups beforehand) in future Cochrane reviews. AIMS would welcome this development, given some of the limitations of randomised controlled trials, as outlined in our webpage understanding quantitative research evidence.

The authors of this report remind us that many interventions in obstetrics have not been supported by evidence. Archie Cochrane[1] awarded a ‘wooden spoon’ prize to obstetrics in 1979 because of the lack of evidence to support the blanket policy encouraging all UK women to give birth in hospital at the time. Hospital birth is considered by the authors to be an ‘intervention’ in and of itself in this context, backed by concerns that the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme and World Health Organization have raised about the medicalisation of childbirth.

The report includes an interesting discussion about how interventions in a hospital may lead to disruption of physiological birth and also to further interventions - the ‘cascade of intervention’, with potential impacts not only on the current pregnancy, mother and child, but even into the following generation. There is a detailed analysis of how hospital birth could lead to this - although it was a little surprising to read that “sitting in a car with contractions” and “finding a car park” are listed as some of the first aspects of hospital birth, with an assumption that all birthing women and people drive to hospital!

The authors also note that information-giving about choice of place of birth is often not evidence-based or patient centred, but is subject to “organisational pressures and professional norms”; this is reflected in the feedback from women calling the AIMS helpline. AIMS campaigns for all pregnant women and people to be supported in their choice of place of birth, as in our Position Paper on Choice of Birthplace. Although this review may support this choice, the rhetoric often isn’t transformed into reality when significant numbers of birthing women and people still do not currently have a full choice of birthplace options in the UK. For this reason we continue to campaign for a maternity system that offers a genuine choice of birthplace for all pregnant women and people and better support for truly personalised care and for all those navigating the maternity system as it currently exists.


Author Bio: Catharine Hart studied biology at the University of York and later trained as a midwife at the University of East Anglia; she is an AIMS volunteer and a member of the Campaigns Team.


[1] Editor’s note: When we refer to the Cochrane databases for the most reliable and up-to-date research, we have Archie Cochrane to thank. https://community.cochrane.org/archie-cochrane-name-behind-cochrane


The AIMS Journal spearheads discussions about change and development in the maternity services..

AIMS Journal articles on the website go back to 1960, offering an important historical record of maternity issues over the past 60 years. Please check the date of the article because the situation that it discusses may have changed since it was published. We are also very aware that the language used in many articles may not be the language that AIMS would use today.

To contact the editors, please email: journal@aims.org.uk

We make the AIMS Journal freely available so that as many people as possible can benefit from the articles. If you found this article interesting please consider supporting us by becoming an AIMS member or making a donation. We are a small charity that accepts no commercial sponsorship, in order to preserve our reputation for providing impartial, evidence-based information. You can make donations at Peoples Fundraising. To become an AIMS member or join our mailing list see Join AIMS

AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

Latest Content

Journal

« »

Report of Parliamentary Debate on B…

AIMS Journal, 2024, Vol 36, No 1 By Elle Gundry The first parliamentary debate on birth trauma took place in the House of Commons on Thursday 19th October 2023. [1] Thank…

Read more

Doulas supporting clients to make a…

AIMS Journal, 2024, Vol 36, No 1 By Anne Glover I work with women from all walks of life, but one thing that is important to them all, is having a positive and satisfying…

Read more

My Complaint

AIMS Journal, 2024, Vol 36, No 1 Editor’s note: In this quite shocking account of disrespect and neglect, Grace describes the arrival of her first baby. With Grace’s perm…

Read more

Events

« »

MaMA conference - 26/ 27 April 2024

MaMa Conference is the largest & longest running annual midwifery & maternity conference in the UK. Over the past 12 amazing years we have created an original and unique…

Read more

AIMS Workshop: The Foundation Stone…

Join us for an interactive online AIMS workshop: " The Foundation Stones for Supporting the Physiological Process in Pregnancy and Birth ". In this workshop discussion we…

Read more

Midlands 2024 Maternity and Midwife…

"The Maternity and Midwifery Festivals are back face to face and we’re looking forward to meeting you in 2024. Nine events across the UK and Ireland – all of them free of…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

What are the priorities for midwife…

AIMS is proud to be supporting the RCM's Research Prioritisation project as a Project Partner and with one of our volunteers on the Steering Group www.rcm.org.uk/promotin…

Read more

Parliamentary Inquiry into Birth Tr…

Introduction to AIMS and why AIMS is making a submission Since 1960, AIMS has been the leading advocate for improvements in UK maternity care. We have national and intern…

Read more

BICS Conference poster: AIMS Campai…

AIMS Campaigns Team volunteers are presenting a poster about our campaign for Physiology-Informed Maternity Services at the 2023 conference of the British Intrapartum Car…

Read more