Sheryl Sidery , Andrew Bisits , Virginia Spear , Allison Cummins
{"title":"来自公共资助的家庭分娩计划的见解。","authors":"Sheryl Sidery , Andrew Bisits , Virginia Spear , Allison Cummins","doi":"10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There are high levels of consumer demand for homebirth in Australia, however access is limited due to a wide range of factors, including associated costs of a private midwife and the limited number of publicly funded homebirth models. Homebirth with a qualified midwife, networked into a health system, is a safe option for women with a low-risk pregnancy.</div><div>This paper has two aims. The first is to describe the implementation of a publicly funded homebirth service with an employed mentor. The second is to provide the outcomes from a matched cohort of women who received care from the same Midwifery Group Practice [MGP] who gave birth at home, compared with those who gave birth in hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The retrospective comparative cohort study used routinely collected perinatal data from the hospital’s electronic database (eMaternity) from July 2018 – October 2021. The cohort of interest were women who received care through MGP. They were identically matched by parity, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), spontaneous labour and gestation of 37–42 weeks. A description of the employed midwifery mentor to implement this model of care is also provided.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>100 women gave birth at home during the study period. They were more likely to have a physiological birth (p < 0.001), intact perineum (p < 0.0001), and less likely to have a postpartum haemorrhage (p < 0.0001) compared to the matched cohort of women who birthed in hospital. There were less assisted births and caesarean section births for women who transferred from home to hospital (p < 0.0001). No statistical differences were seen between groups for postpartum haemorrhage, and Apgar score of < 7 at 5 minutes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study demonstrated favourable outcomes for women receiving MGP who planned to birth at home compared to those women who chose a hospital birth. This is consistent with the existing literature that place of birth makes a difference. A description of the role of a mentor in supporting the sustainability of a publicly funded homebirth program is provided. Further research is recommended to evaluate the mentor’s role in implementing and sustaining the model.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48868,"journal":{"name":"Women and Birth","volume":"38 1","pages":"Article 101864"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insights from a publicly funded homebirth program\",\"authors\":\"Sheryl Sidery , Andrew Bisits , Virginia Spear , Allison Cummins\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There are high levels of consumer demand for homebirth in Australia, however access is limited due to a wide range of factors, including associated costs of a private midwife and the limited number of publicly funded homebirth models. Homebirth with a qualified midwife, networked into a health system, is a safe option for women with a low-risk pregnancy.</div><div>This paper has two aims. The first is to describe the implementation of a publicly funded homebirth service with an employed mentor. The second is to provide the outcomes from a matched cohort of women who received care from the same Midwifery Group Practice [MGP] who gave birth at home, compared with those who gave birth in hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The retrospective comparative cohort study used routinely collected perinatal data from the hospital’s electronic database (eMaternity) from July 2018 – October 2021. The cohort of interest were women who received care through MGP. They were identically matched by parity, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), spontaneous labour and gestation of 37–42 weeks. A description of the employed midwifery mentor to implement this model of care is also provided.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>100 women gave birth at home during the study period. They were more likely to have a physiological birth (p < 0.001), intact perineum (p < 0.0001), and less likely to have a postpartum haemorrhage (p < 0.0001) compared to the matched cohort of women who birthed in hospital. There were less assisted births and caesarean section births for women who transferred from home to hospital (p < 0.0001). No statistical differences were seen between groups for postpartum haemorrhage, and Apgar score of < 7 at 5 minutes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study demonstrated favourable outcomes for women receiving MGP who planned to birth at home compared to those women who chose a hospital birth. This is consistent with the existing literature that place of birth makes a difference. A description of the role of a mentor in supporting the sustainability of a publicly funded homebirth program is provided. Further research is recommended to evaluate the mentor’s role in implementing and sustaining the model.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women and Birth\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101864\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women and Birth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187151922400324X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women and Birth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187151922400324X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
There are high levels of consumer demand for homebirth in Australia, however access is limited due to a wide range of factors, including associated costs of a private midwife and the limited number of publicly funded homebirth models. Homebirth with a qualified midwife, networked into a health system, is a safe option for women with a low-risk pregnancy.
This paper has two aims. The first is to describe the implementation of a publicly funded homebirth service with an employed mentor. The second is to provide the outcomes from a matched cohort of women who received care from the same Midwifery Group Practice [MGP] who gave birth at home, compared with those who gave birth in hospital.
Methods
The retrospective comparative cohort study used routinely collected perinatal data from the hospital’s electronic database (eMaternity) from July 2018 – October 2021. The cohort of interest were women who received care through MGP. They were identically matched by parity, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), spontaneous labour and gestation of 37–42 weeks. A description of the employed midwifery mentor to implement this model of care is also provided.
Findings
100 women gave birth at home during the study period. They were more likely to have a physiological birth (p < 0.001), intact perineum (p < 0.0001), and less likely to have a postpartum haemorrhage (p < 0.0001) compared to the matched cohort of women who birthed in hospital. There were less assisted births and caesarean section births for women who transferred from home to hospital (p < 0.0001). No statistical differences were seen between groups for postpartum haemorrhage, and Apgar score of < 7 at 5 minutes.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated favourable outcomes for women receiving MGP who planned to birth at home compared to those women who chose a hospital birth. This is consistent with the existing literature that place of birth makes a difference. A description of the role of a mentor in supporting the sustainability of a publicly funded homebirth program is provided. Further research is recommended to evaluate the mentor’s role in implementing and sustaining the model.
期刊介绍:
Women and Birth is the official journal of the Australian College of Midwives (ACM). It is a midwifery journal that publishes on all matters that affect women and birth, from pre-conceptual counselling, through pregnancy, birth, and the first six weeks postnatal. All papers accepted will draw from and contribute to the relevant contemporary research, policy and/or theoretical literature. We seek research papers, quality assurances papers (with ethical approval) discussion papers, clinical practice papers, case studies and original literature reviews.
Our women-centred focus is inclusive of the family, fetus and newborn, both well and sick, and covers both healthy and complex pregnancies and births. The journal seeks papers that take a woman-centred focus on maternity services, epidemiology, primary health care, reproductive psycho/physiology, midwifery practice, theory, research, education, management and leadership. We also seek relevant papers on maternal mental health and neonatal well-being, natural and complementary therapies, local, national and international policy, management, politics, economics and societal and cultural issues as they affect childbearing women and their families. Topics may include, where appropriate, neonatal care, child and family health, women’s health, related to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum, including lactation. Interprofessional papers relevant to midwifery are welcome. Articles are double blind peer-reviewed, primarily by experts in the field of the submitted work.