Background: Most studies on birth settings investigate the association between planned place of birth at the start of labor and birth outcomes and intervention rates. To optimize maternity care it also is important to pay attention to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores the association between the initial preferred place of birth and model of care, and the course of pregnancy and labor in low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Methods: As part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007–2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 182). Data were obtained by a questionnaire before 20 weeks of gestation and by medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth. Results: Low-risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife-led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.25-0.66). Preferring a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital - was associated with lower odds of induced labor (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.95 respectively OR 0.42 95% CI 0.21-0.85) and epidural analgesia (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.18-0.56 respectively OR 0.34 95% CI 0.19-0.62) compared to preferring a birth with obstetrician-led care. In addition, women who preferred a home birth were less likely to experience augmentation of labor (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.32-0.93) and narcotic analgesia (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.21-0.79) compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care. We observed no significant association between preferred place of birth and mode of birth. Conclusions: Nulliparous women who initially preferred a home birth were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy. Women who initially preferred a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital – experienced lower rates of interventions during labor. Although some differences can be attributed to the model of care, we suggest that characteristics and attitudes of women themselves also play an important role.
MULTIFILE
Aim The aim of this study is to gain more insight into child and environmental factors that influence gross motor development (GMD) of healthy infants from birth until reaching the milestone of independent walking, based on longitudinal research. Background A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and CINAHL to identify studies from inception to February 2020. Studies that investigated the association between child or environmental factors and infant GMD using longitudinal measurements of infant GMD were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key information and assessed risk of bias of the selected studies, using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool (QUIPS). Strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting and no evidence) for the factors identified was described according to a previously established classification. Results In 36 studies, six children and 11 environmental factors were identified. Five studies were categorized as having low risk of bias. Strong evidence was found for the association between birthweight and GMD in healthy full-term and preterm infants. Moderate evidence was found for associations between gestational age and GMD, and sleeping position and GMD. There was conflicting evidence for associations between twinning and GMD, and breastfeeding and GMD. No evidence was found for an association between maternal postpartum depression and GMD. Evidence for the association of other factors with GMD was classified as ‘limited’ because each of these factors was examined in only one longitudinal study. Conclusion Infant GMD appears associated with two child factors (birthweight and gestational age) and one environmental factor (sleeping position). For the other factors identified in this review, insufficient evidence for an association with GMD was found. For those factors that were examined in only one longitudinal study, and are therefore classified as having limited evidence, more research would be needed to reach a conclusion.
Background: Research in maternity care is often conducted in mixed low and high-risk or solely high-risk populations. This limits generalizability to the low-risk population of pregnant women receiving care from Dutch midwives. To address this limitation, 24 midwifery practices in the Netherlands bring together routinely collected data from medical records of pregnant women and their offspring in the VeCaS database. This database offers possibilities for research of physiological pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores if the pregnant women in VeCaS are a representative sample for the national population of women who receive primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands. Methods: In VeCaS we selected a low risk population in midwife-led care who gave birth in 2015. We compared population characteristics and birth outcomes in this study cohort with a similarly defined national cohort, using Chi Square and two side t-test statistics. Additionally, we describe some birth outcomes and lifestyle factors. Results: Midwifery practices contributing to VeCaS are spread over the Netherlands, although the western region is underrepresented. For population characteristics, the VeCaS cohort is similar to the national cohort in maternal age (mean 30.4 years) and parity (nulliparous women: 47.1% versus 45.9%). Less often, women in the VeCaS cohort have a non-Dutch background (15.7% vs 24.4%), a higher SES (9.9% vs 23.7%) and live in an urbanised surrounding (4.9% vs 24.8%). Birth outcomes were similar to the national cohort, most women gave birth at term (94.9% vs 94.5% between 37 + 0–41+ 6 weeks), started labour spontaneously (74.5% vs 75.5%) and had a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.4% vs 77.6%), 16.9% had a home birth. Furthermore, 61.1% had a normal pre-pregnancy BMI, and 81.0% did not smoke in pregnancy. Conclusions: The VeCaS database contains data of a population that is mostly comparable to the national population in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands. Therefore, the VeCaS database is suitable for research in a healthy pregnant population and is valuable to improve knowledge of the physiological course of pregnancy and birth. Representativeness of maternal characteristics may be improved by including midwifery practices from the urbanised western region in the Netherlands.
