Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Research

Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician

Patricia A. Janssen, Lee Saxell, Lesley A. Page, Michael C. Klein, Robert M. Liston and Shoo K. Lee
CMAJ September 15, 2009 181 (6-7) 377-383; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081869
Patricia A. Janssen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lee Saxell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lesley A. Page
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael C. Klein
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert M. Liston
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shoo K. Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. [email protected]
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Neonatal Outcomes: The author responds
    Patricia A Janssen
    Posted on: 11 December 2009
  • Statistics reversed?
    Stephen Cardwell
    Posted on: 11 December 2009
  • Statistics reversed?
    Stephen Cardwell
    Posted on: 27 November 2009
  • Perinatal Death Rates
    Patricia Janssen
    Posted on: 12 November 2009
  • Inconsistent Statistics
    Stephen L Cardwell
    Posted on: 29 October 2009
  • Re: The smoking status
    Patricia A Janssen
    Posted on: 09 October 2009
  • Author's response to: Statistics Confusing
    Patricia A Janssen
    Posted on: 01 October 2009
  • The smoking status
    Enrique F Barros, MD
    Posted on: 28 September 2009
  • Statistics still confusing
    John P Oyston
    Posted on: 28 September 2009
  • CMAJ Editor's response to Dr. Oyston
    CMAJ Editors' response
    Posted on: 24 September 2009
  • Perinatal death data
    John P Oyston
    Posted on: 24 September 2009
  • Re: Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    Lee Saxell
    Posted on: 08 September 2009
  • Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    Amy B. Tuteur, MD
    Posted on: 02 September 2009
  • Posted on: (11 December 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Neonatal Outcomes: The author responds
    Neonatal Outcomes: The author responds
    • Patricia A Janssen, Vacnouver, BC

    Dear Dr. Cardwell:

    Column headings were reversed for neonatal outcomes only. You have brought to our attention that the column headings for Table 4 were reversed. This does not change any of the conclusions except excess newborn readmissions in the home birth group in comparison to the midwife group instead of in comparision with the physician group.

    A revised table has been sent to the editor for cor...

    Show More

    Dear Dr. Cardwell:

    Column headings were reversed for neonatal outcomes only. You have brought to our attention that the column headings for Table 4 were reversed. This does not change any of the conclusions except excess newborn readmissions in the home birth group in comparison to the midwife group instead of in comparision with the physician group.

    A revised table has been sent to the editor for correction. We take responsibility for this error and offer our sincere apologies.

    Patricia Janssen

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (11 December 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Statistics reversed?
    Statistics reversed?
    • Stephen Cardwell

    Were all of the statistics in the article for those two groups (planned hospital midwife and physician births) reversed?

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (27 November 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Statistics reversed?
    Statistics reversed?
    • Stephen Cardwell

    Were all of the statistics in the article for those two groups (planned hospital midwife and physician births) reversed?

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (12 November 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Perinatal Death Rates
    Perinatal Death Rates
    • Patricia Janssen

    Dear Dr. Cardwell: Thank you for your observation. The perinatal death rates in the text are a reflection of the column headings being reversed for planned hospital midwife vs. physician births in the last table of our paper which was the table in the appendix. The rate of perinatal death for the planned midwife-attended hospital group was 3/4723 or 0.64/1,000 as you point out and for the planned physician-attended hos...

    Show More

    Dear Dr. Cardwell: Thank you for your observation. The perinatal death rates in the text are a reflection of the column headings being reversed for planned hospital midwife vs. physician births in the last table of our paper which was the table in the appendix. The rate of perinatal death for the planned midwife-attended hospital group was 3/4723 or 0.64/1,000 as you point out and for the planned physician-attended hospital group was 3/5294 or 0.57/1,000. So the text with respect to perinatal death rates should read: 0.64 (95% CI 0.00-1.56) among the planned hospital births attended by a midwife and 0.57 (95% CI 0.00-1.43) among the planned hospital births attended by a physician. I apologize for the ongoing confusion this has caused – Patricia Janssen

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (29 October 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Inconsistent Statistics
    Inconsistent Statistics
    • Stephen L Cardwell, Nanaimo, BC

    There are inconsistencies in the statistics.

    The numbers in the revised appendix (and Author's response to: Statistics Confusing) are not consistent with the calculated statistics in the article. For example, the rate of perinatal death in the planned hospital, midwife-attended group is indicated throughout the article to be 0.57 per 1000 births, but 3 deaths/4723 births is a rate of 0.64.

    Conflict of...

    Show More

    There are inconsistencies in the statistics.

    The numbers in the revised appendix (and Author's response to: Statistics Confusing) are not consistent with the calculated statistics in the article. For example, the rate of perinatal death in the planned hospital, midwife-attended group is indicated throughout the article to be 0.57 per 1000 births, but 3 deaths/4723 births is a rate of 0.64.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (9 October 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Re: The smoking status
    Re: The smoking status
    • Patricia A Janssen

    We tested smoking status as a potential confounder in our analysis and found that it did not change relative risks for perinatal outcomes, perhaps because overall the numbers of smokers in each group was relatively small. Patricia Janssen (author)

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (1 October 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Author's response to: Statistics Confusing
    Author's response to: Statistics Confusing
    • Patricia A Janssen, UBC School of Population and Public Health, 5804 Fairview Ave, Vancouver, B.C., V6T-1Z3

    Dear Dr. Oyston: Thank you for your letter and persistence in pointing out your concerns about Table 1 in the Appendix. The transfer of this table from the main body of our table to an Appendix has caused considerable confusion. Newborn outcomes were analyzed within the planned home/hospital births as an "intention to treat" analysis. When we analyzed newborn outcomes, newborns with congenital anomalies were excluded...

    Show More

    Dear Dr. Oyston: Thank you for your letter and persistence in pointing out your concerns about Table 1 in the Appendix. The transfer of this table from the main body of our table to an Appendix has caused considerable confusion. Newborn outcomes were analyzed within the planned home/hospital births as an "intention to treat" analysis. When we analyzed newborn outcomes, newborns with congenital anomalies were excluded. The number in the planned home birth group was 2882 (2899 minus 17 with anomalies); in the planned hospital, midwife-attended group was 4723 (4752 - 29) and in the planned hospital, physician - attended group 5294 (5331 minus 37). Unfortunately, the headings for the planned hospital birth with a midwife and physician were reversed, hence your confusion about the number of newborns in each group. This error was not caught because this table was initially deleted and then put back in as part of our discussions with editorial staff. The number of deaths was 1/2882 in the planned home birth group; 3/4723 in the planned hospital, midwife-attended group and 3/5294 in the planned hospital physician-attended group. I have sent this revised table to CMAJ. Thank you again for bringing this error to our attention - Patricia Janssen, PhD, author.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (28 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for The smoking status
    The smoking status
    • Enrique F Barros, MD, Porto Alegre - Brazil

    Esteemed Dr. Janssen and colleagues, I would like to hear your comment on the smoking status of the enrolled women (in table 1). Would higher rates of smokers among the group of "planned hospital birth with physician" be capable of explaining, at least partially, the unfavorable outcomes for this group?

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (28 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Statistics still confusing
    Statistics still confusing
    • John P Oyston

    I appreciate the editors pointing out the online appendix which provides the actual raw numbers of deaths in each group.

    When the "primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality" I would have expected the number of perinatal deaths in each group to be in the main body of the article.

    Unfortunately the appendix confuses me more. There are three groups - Midwife/Home, Midwife/Hospital and MD/Hospital....

    Show More

    I appreciate the editors pointing out the online appendix which provides the actual raw numbers of deaths in each group.

    When the "primary outcome measure was perinatal mortality" I would have expected the number of perinatal deaths in each group to be in the main body of the article.

    Unfortunately the appendix confuses me more. There are three groups - Midwife/Home, Midwife/Hospital and MD/Hospital. The introduction says there were 2889, 4752 and 5331 women in each group, presumably based on intention to treat. Appendix 1, from which the published perinatal death rates are calculated, has 2882 women and one death, 5294 women and three deaths and 4723 women and three deaths in these group, presumably based on actual mode of delivery.

    Somehow there are 608 fewer MD/Hospital births than planned and 542 more Midwife/Hospital births than planned. Although the main text states that 4604 of those who planned Midwife/Hospital births did so, the death rate for this group is calculated on 5294 births. Presumably 690 women who intended other birth types ended up in this group.

    Surely the death rate should be calculated based on intention to treat? Shouldn't the authors let readers know what the original planned method of delivery was for each of the seven deaths, especially given the large movements between treatment groups?

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (24 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for CMAJ Editor's response to Dr. Oyston
    CMAJ Editor's response to Dr. Oyston
    • CMAJ Editors' response

    "The table providing the numbers of neonatal deaths in each group is Appendix 1. The link to the appendix is in the results section in the paragraph headed "Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes". The decision to place these data in online appendix was taken by CMAJ to save space in print."

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (24 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Perinatal death data
    Perinatal death data
    • John P Oyston

    I have had some difficulty understanding the statistics in this article. It is unfortunate that while the exact number of events is supplied for interventions and maternal outcomes (so that we know, for example, that 224 women in the planned home birth group received epidural analgesia) the neonatal outcomes are only reported as relative risk, which obscures the number of events. In particular, the number of perinatal...

    Show More

    I have had some difficulty understanding the statistics in this article. It is unfortunate that while the exact number of events is supplied for interventions and maternal outcomes (so that we know, for example, that 224 women in the planned home birth group received epidural analgesia) the neonatal outcomes are only reported as relative risk, which obscures the number of events. In particular, the number of perinatal deaths in each group is not clearly apparent, even though this was the main outcome. The authors quote a rate of 0.57 deaths per thousand in the 4752 planned midwife hospital births, but I calculate this means there were 2.7 deaths in this group. In the 5331 physician hospital births the death rate was 0.64 per thousand, which works out to 3.4 deaths. Surely there has to be a whole number of deaths? Reworking the statistics based on actual method and place of delivery rather than the planned ones does not resolve this dilemma. Surely the authors should have provided a table with the number of deaths, low apgar scores, and other outcomes in each group? Yours John Oyston

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (8 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Re: Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    Re: Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    • Lee Saxell

    This is a population-based study which used data from a provincial perinatal database with no personal identifiers. The charts and therefore the clinical details surrounding each death were not available to the authors. In Canada, stillbirth is defined as intrauterine death after 20 weeks gestation. Early neonatal death is from birth to 7 days. Together this time period is referred to as perinatal death and it is a stand...

    Show More

    This is a population-based study which used data from a provincial perinatal database with no personal identifiers. The charts and therefore the clinical details surrounding each death were not available to the authors. In Canada, stillbirth is defined as intrauterine death after 20 weeks gestation. Early neonatal death is from birth to 7 days. Together this time period is referred to as perinatal death and it is a standard mortality rate in Canada. We also examined the time period between 8-28 days of life and there were no deaths during this period (late neonatal period) in any of the three comparison groups.

    Following this first broad data search, the three groups were matched for comparison. All of the groups had to meet the eligibility requirements for home birth, regardless of planned place of birth. Only those births that occurred between 37+0 weeks and <42 weeks were included in the final analysis.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (2 September 2009)
    Page navigation anchor for Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    Why include stillbirths before 28 weeks?
    • Amy B. Tuteur, MD, Sharon, MA USA

    This study has many strengths, but it has one glaring weakness. It fails to provide the nature and circumstances of the deaths in each group. Since there were only 7 deaths in the entire study, it is an inexplicable omission. This is especially relevant since the authors chose an unusual measure of mortality. Rather than using neonatal mortality (birth to 28 days) or perinatal mortality (from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 28 d...

    Show More

    This study has many strengths, but it has one glaring weakness. It fails to provide the nature and circumstances of the deaths in each group. Since there were only 7 deaths in the entire study, it is an inexplicable omission. This is especially relevant since the authors chose an unusual measure of mortality. Rather than using neonatal mortality (birth to 28 days) or perinatal mortality (from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 28 days of life), they used deaths from 20 weeks of pregnancy to 7 days of life.

    It is widely recognized that stillbirths prior to 28 weeks are not a reflection of obstetric care. Therefore, the decision to include stillbirths from 20-28 weeks raises the possibility that the authors chose to include such stillbirths to make the numbers from the hospital group look poor by comparison to the homebirth group. Unless and until the authors are forthcoming about the circumstances of the deaths, we need to reserve judgment about what the study really shows. If the early stillbirths are removed, the study may actually show that homebirth in Canada is not as safe as hospital birth.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 181 (6-7)
CMAJ
Vol. 181, Issue 6-7
15 Sep 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician
Patricia A. Janssen, Lee Saxell, Lesley A. Page, Michael C. Klein, Robert M. Liston, Shoo K. Lee
CMAJ Sep 2009, 181 (6-7) 377-383; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081869

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician
Patricia A. Janssen, Lee Saxell, Lesley A. Page, Michael C. Klein, Robert M. Liston, Shoo K. Lee
CMAJ Sep 2009, 181 (6-7) 377-383; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081869
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Dans ce numéro
  • Highlights
  • The safety of home birth: Is the evidence good enough?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
  • The authors respond to "Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged"
  • Intrapartum and neonatal mortality among low-risk women in midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care in the Amsterdam region of the Netherlands: a propensity score matched study
  • Mortality in Infants Affected by Preterm Birth and Severe Small-for-Gestational Age Birth Weight
  • Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies
  • Institutional and Cultural Perspectives on Home Birth in Israel
  • Childbirth Education Prior to Pregnancy? Survey Findings of Childbirth Preferences and Attitudes Among Young Women
  • Unassisted childbirth: why mothers are leaving the system
  • The effect of maternal age and planned place of birth on intrapartum outcomes in healthy women with straightforward pregnancies: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study
  • The Context and Consequences of Professional Indemnification of Home Birth Midwifery in Ireland
  • Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study
  • Planned Home Birth
  • Expert Workshop Assesses the Significance of Birth Location on Maternal and Infant Outcomes
  • For women with term low-risk pregnancies, risk of perinatal mortality and intrapartum morbidity similar across planned places of birth
  • Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study
  • Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study
  • Home Birth: A Story of "Infinite Love and Enormous Rejection"
  • The Necessity and Challenge of International Midwifery Science
  • Correction: Research
  • Smoking status and planned hospital births
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Self-harm among youth during the first 28 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study
  • Emergency department visits and hospital admissions for suicidal ideation, self-poisoning and self-harm among adolescents in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Trends in hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease over 16 years in Canada
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Obstetrics & gynecology

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire