iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

British Study: Half Of All Pregnant Women Could Give Birth At Home Safely

Pregnant

By MARIA CHENG   11/24/11 10:32 PM ET   AP

LONDON -- A new study in England shows little difference in complications among the babies of women with low-risk pregnancies who delivered in hospitals versus those who gave birth with midwives at home or in birthing centers.

Based on the findings, researchers said women with uncomplicated pregnancies in England should be able to choose where they want to give birth – and one expert said about half of all pregnant women here could potentially safely give birth outside a hospital.

But they sounded a note of caution for first-time mothers and their infants, who may face a higher risk if they choose a home birth.

"I would never say women should give birth in a particular place, but hope this gives women more information to make an informed choice," said Dr. Peter Brocklehurst, director of the Institute for Women's Health at University College Hospital in London, one of the paper's lead authors. He conducted the research while at Oxford University.

"Birth isn't an abnormal process, it's a physiological process," he said. "And if your pregnancy and labor is not complicated, then you don't need a high level of specific expertise."

Brocklehurst added that about 50 percent of pregnant women in England – those who are low-risk – should be able to choose where to have their baby.

More than 90 percent of pregnant women in England now give birth in a hospital. Some officials say the new study should prompt women to consider alternatives.

"This is about giving women a choice," said Mary Newburn of NCT, a U.K. charity for parents, one of the study's authors. She said midwife-run birth centers in England have a more homelike environment, with privacy, sofas and birthing pools.

In Britain, midwives deliver more than 60 percent of babies already. Similar care is provided in the Netherlands, where about a quarter of all births happen at home. Elsewhere in Europe, most births are led by doctors, although midwives may also be involved.

In the United States, however, less than one percent of births happen at home. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not support planned home births and warns evidence shows they have a higher risk of newborn death compared to planned hospital births. The training of midwives in the U.S. varies by state – and some have no regulations.

Brocklehurst and colleagues collected data for nearly 65,000 mothers and babies between 2008 and 2010 in England. Of those, there were 19,706 births in hospital obstetric wards, 16,840 births at home, 11,282 births in "freestanding" midwifery units – independent clinics where there are no doctors or access to anesthetics – and 16,710 births in "alongside" midwifery units, often housed within hospitals.

All the pregnancies were low-risk, meaning the mothers were healthy and carried their baby to term. Women planning C-sections or expecting twins or multiple births were excluded from the study.

In the U.K.'s hospital obstetric wards, most low-risk women don't see a doctor during labor and are only treated by midwives.

There didn't appear to be a difference for the infants' health based on where the mothers planned to give birth.

But researchers found a higher risk for first-time mothers planning a home birth. Among those women, there were 9.3 adverse events per 1,000 births, including babies with brain damage due to labor problems and stillbirth. That compared to 5.3 adverse events per 1,000 births for those planning a hospital birth.

The study was published Friday in the medical journal, BMJ. It was paid for by Britain's department of health and another government health research body.

Dr. Tony Falconer, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, said his group supports "appropriately selected home birth." He noted the higher risk of problems among first-time mothers choosing a home birth and said that raised questions about where they should deliver.

For Emily Shaw of Oxfordshire, northwest of London, giving birth in a hospital wasn't appealing. She wanted home births for both her sons but because her first baby was induced into labor, she had to deliver him in a hospital in October 2008.

Shaw delivered her second son at home in April. "I felt much more comfortable there," she said. "Instead of getting into a car to go to the hospital, the midwives came to me."

"It was nice to have the home comforts during labor," she added, saying she could eat in her own kitchen and use her own bathroom. "And unlike the hospital, they didn't kick out my partner in the middle of the night."

____

Online:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST PARENTS

LONDON -- A new study in England shows little difference in complications among the babies of women with low-risk pregnancies who delivered in hospitals versus those who gave birth with midwives at ho...
LONDON -- A new study in England shows little difference in complications among the babies of women with low-risk pregnancies who delivered in hospitals versus those who gave birth with midwives at ho...
Filed by Farah Miller  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 36
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:52 AM on 12/01/2011
Check Robyn Lin midwife based in Bali up for nomination CNN heroes of year award 2011 Dec 7th
03:32 AM on 11/30/2011
Of course it doesn't say "will" give birth safely - no-one can ever say that, it isn't within the power of even the best doctor or midwife. There are equally babies who suffer adverse outcomes in hospital too.

In fact this research is a massive "landmark" study in the UK, reported and peer reviewed in the British Medical Journal, based on where women intended to deliver their baby when labour started. What was in fact found was that giving birth in the UK is very safe, wherever you choose. There was a slight increase in risk for first-time mums choosing home - but what was also interesting was that 45% of those mums transferred to hospital during labour - in the most part because they wanted an epidural or labour was slow - only 10% of transfers were because of fetal distress. So many of the babies whose outcomes were not so good in that "planned home birth for first time mums" group were in fact born in the hospital. What is not clear is why there is that increase in poor outcomes for first time planned home births - is it the transfer process, the anxiety caused by being in hospital, the attitude of hospital staff, that causes more poor outcomes? Because for second or third time mums, planned home birth is shown as just as safe for the baby as hospital birth in the UK, with much improved outcomes for the mother.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
obamich44
“There is no sin except stupidity.”
03:40 PM on 11/28/2011
The title states that half of all pregnant women COULD give birth at home, not SHOULD. The point is to know your options and make an educated decision for what works best FOR YOU. That being said, I had natural childbirth (no epidural/no drugs) in a hospital setting. I was a low risk pregnancy so I stayed home for as long as possible before going to the hospital. While I was pregnant, I made sure to educate myself as much as possible so that I could feel comfortable with what was happening and feel comfortable with any decision I made. I would love to be able to have my next child (if it ever happens) at a birthing center. This isn't putting anyone down. This is about knowing your options. If you feel better and more comfortable being in a hospital, then that's what you should do. But women do need to know more about alternative options. Especially if you're like me and terrified of hospitals.
02:45 PM on 11/28/2011
I find it amazing that American doctors fear for home births yet that was the norm for many up until the 60s and with midwives to boot! Many midwives were trained by another midwife and that was it, not years and years of schooling and theory. Not knocking today's technology but the old way worked too.
11:03 AM on 11/28/2011
My husband and I are thinking of having our first child together and we think that Alternative Birthing Centers that are connected to a hospital are the way to go. I really want to have a completely natural birth with no epidural or inducing and the ABC centers let you progress on your own time but....if complications arise you are only a minute away from the hospital. A good movie to watch is "The Business of Being Born", it was really eye-opening for me.
02:48 PM on 11/28/2011
I never got the whole concept of no medication when needed. I think it's a crock for a movement to dictate to women that they don't need any medication at all to prove control.
07:59 PM on 11/28/2011
Well, I see birth as a natural process much like my monthly cycle. Would you take medicine every month for your period even if you didn't feel any discomfort? I don't. I take medicine as rarely as possible. The medical advances we have made have changed so dramatically in the last 100 years much less the last 40. A lot of women I know said that the the epidural numbed their legs and made it uncomfortable afterwards and that they even felt like they were in a "fog" when their baby was delivered. I'm sorry if I want to feel the pain and the process of birth and being fully aware during the whole thing.
12:37 PM on 12/04/2011
What about the movement that dictated women DO need medication to birth? Medicated births were created by male doctors, in order to better control women and make men feel less guilty about what their gender puts a woman through in order for the next generation to continue on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
nikanj
free the fnords
03:07 AM on 11/30/2011
If you have access to an Alternative Birthing Center, that's the best !

You might like to check out the Midwifery Today website, they have
many very interesting articles posted at www.midwiferytoday.com
11:17 PM on 11/26/2011
Wow. The opinions here are stunning. There is a tremendous lack of information in these posts. Yes, everyone has an opinion, but when they are presented in this way, it is no wonder we have such a high cesarean section rate and so many false stories of "My baby (wife, I) would have died if we had a homebirth..." No one wants to do the research. It is much easier to follow the herd. A simple class in human reproduction or biology would go a long way.
MaeS
More cowbell!
08:25 AM on 11/28/2011
But what about the true stories? My sister had a totally normal pregnancy with her second. And a totally normal delivery too. But when her son was born, he had lung problems and had to be whisked away to the respirators immediately. He would have died waiting for an ambulance.

I also have a friend who nearly died giving birth to a breach baby at home.

That said, I have known at least 5 women who have given birth to multiple babies at home without issues. I am glad it worked for them. Still, it isn't something I would choose personally.
03:35 AM on 11/30/2011
Home birth midwies carry the emergency equipment to deal with breathing difficulties after birth - and many other emergencies. They are trained to deal with birth emergencies!
02:52 PM on 11/28/2011
There are births that need immediate attention. However, women have been giving birth at home for centuries, up until the 60s where I'm from so let's not devalue those births either. It should be a choice and medical necessity might be the dictator.
10:24 PM on 11/26/2011
come to New York , we have them in taxi cabs
Mjones2
My micro-bio is bigger than yours
10:16 PM on 11/26/2011
Having my kids at home was not something I even considered, because of the risks if something went wrong. Not to mention the mess! After delivering my second, the delivery room looked like the scene of a triple murder. There was blood EVERYWHERE. Hubby and I could hardly believe it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
therightzwrong
re-elect al gore
10:42 AM on 11/26/2011
Prolly safer at home. MRSA is like all over the hospitals.
10:17 AM on 11/26/2011
I was delivered by a midwife as were all the children in the rural area where I grew up. My Grandmother was a midwife and I can remember she had great success in live births without defects. Two other ladies in the area were midwives.

Many things could contribute to all these bad things happening to babies born in this era. People pop a pill every time they get a pain, Many of the expectant mothers are on drugs, see fit to drink alcohol, live on junk food, and I could go on and on.

My son was born in a hospital and yes,i was given an anesthetic. Don't remember when he arrived, but he was a healthy 9 lb. 22inches long baby. When he was born 40+ years ago, Mamas stayed in the hospital a week. Now, it's almost a drive thru event.

Never heard of a mother getting staph infection when babies were delivered at home!! And, instead of diapers that are filling up landfills, destroying our country, diapers were washed at home. I DID wash his diapers. Bought one package of the "throwaways," didn't use but a couple of them and gave the rest to someone else.

How is the taxpayer affording to do all these things? Well, the taxpayer is not only paying for their babies, but so many who don't have and don't want a job.
02:55 PM on 11/28/2011
All of us were born at home too and there was a medical emergency with one of us but it was handled. Toward the end of home births in my area, some nurses were delivering at home too, long before the "midwifery" we have now.

Cultures acclimate to what they're introduced to and in America it's a pill for every single thing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elaine tomkinson
09:49 AM on 11/26/2011
Just how is a woman supposed to know if she is in the one half that can give birth at home? And what if .......what if something goes wrong, what if they can't get to the hospital in time when something goes wrong? I personally think home births are a bit dangerous - for mother and baby, and its a risk I would not take.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fran Jaime
Yo Soy 132!
11:04 PM on 11/26/2011
My mom had her first baby at home, in the late 1930s. The baby died due to complications. She never took that chance again. I didn't either.
02:57 PM on 11/28/2011
And how do you know a hospital in the 30s could've saved it? During segregation many people of color had no choice but to have their babies at home if they lived too far from a "colored" hospital. Also, there were no social programs back then and hospital bills had to be paid, even if the father decided to walk away from his family.
12:50 PM on 12/04/2011
Elzire Dionne gave birth to quintuplets at home, two months premature in the 1930's. Maybe you've heard mention of the girls--they're known collectively as The Dionne Quintuplets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Diana Bitritto
Never be too damn good for your own damn good
08:17 AM on 11/26/2011
I would never give birth at home. After the baby was born I'd still be expected to cook dinner, clean the kitchen, do laundry, and walk the dog.
Mjones2
My micro-bio is bigger than yours
10:16 PM on 11/26/2011
Hee hee, this made me laugh!
photo
irishdoc
It's not me..it's you. Really
11:48 PM on 11/25/2011
"One expert said about half of all pregnant women here could potentially safely give birth outside a hospital." One expert?! They base an entire headline about what ONE unnamed expert has said Anonymously. Why do we tolerate studies such as these that don't actually help anyone make any type of informed decisions. No discussions about the mortality of home birth. No discussions about who would be an ideal candidate. No discussions of how these things go wrong.

http://www.hurtbyhomebirth.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
10:01 AM on 11/26/2011
That's a very conservative estimate but you're right, this article is not full of any kind of information that would give someone the tools to make an informed decision. I would hope that anyone who is pregnant would do a LOT of research and consider all options and possibilities before deciding on a home birth IF they are qualified to have one. I would also hope that midwives are all adequately screening their patients and having sufficient backup with whom they have a good enough relationship to refer them when/if it becomes necessary. It's likely that the NHS is trying to work towards this and could very well do so successfully. The political BS surrounding the issue makes it much much worse because you have professionals that don't trust each other well enough to work together for the good of the patients. From reading some of the stories on your blog, this becomes distressingly clear.
10:30 PM on 11/25/2011
In my state of Colorado, the perinatal mortality rate associated with homebirths attended by "direct-entry midwives" is 11.3 per 1,000 births (2009; latest stats). How many other adverse events is not made public. To be a DEM or CPM in the USA, it appears that most such practitioners just take a test and watch another equally uneducated lay midwife practice. You simply cannot learn how to even recognize an emergency with such limited preparation.
03:05 PM on 11/28/2011
That's awful high. I'd want to know where these mortalities occurred and the circumstances behind them. Was a mother in labor too long during an ice storm and it took the midwife time to get there? Things like that I would want to know.

Birthing babies at home worked where I'm from until the 60s and had a lot of babies died, we would've known because it was a small town. An emergency back then probably didn't have the name it does today but I'm quite sure it was still an emergency. Per my mother, the cord around the neck almost killed a homebirthed sibling but the midwife took care of it.

I've seen L&D nurses work their craft and some were excellent before the dr even had time to arrive. A trained midwife today has the same skill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
07:56 PM on 11/25/2011
The conditions for determining low risk are evident throughout the pregnancy and women under a midwife's care are closely monitored ( much more closely than the average doctor) for signs of possible complications. A lot of people say they or their child would have died but don't realize that a lot of those issues that led to their crisis are caused by in interventions in the first place.

I have always heard that 90% of women have the potential to give birth safely at home but given the state of people's health anymore I'm sure that statistic has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years especially since we have more older mothers, more overweight mothers, and more women who need help to conceive having babies now.