Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Aug 15;2012(8):CD000012.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4.

Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth

Ellen D Hodnett  1 , Soo Downe, Denis Walsh
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth

Ellen D Hodnett et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Alternative institutional settings have been established for the care of pregnant women who prefer little or no medical intervention. The settings may offer care throughout pregnancy and birth, or only during labour; they may be part of hospitals or freestanding entities. Specially designed labour rooms include bedroom-like rooms, ambient rooms, and Snoezelen rooms.

Objectives: Primary: to assess the effects of care in an alternative institutional birth environment compared to care in a conventional setting. Secondary: to determine if the effects of birth settings are influenced by staffing, architectural features, organizational models or geographical location.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 March 2012).

Selection criteria: All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials which compared the effects of an alternative institutional birth setting to a conventional setting.

Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. We performed double data extraction and presented results using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Main results: Ten trials involving 11,795 women met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials of freestanding birth centres or Snoezelen rooms. Allocation to an alternative setting increased the likelihood of: no intrapartum analgesia/anesthesia (six trials, n = 8953; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.33); spontaneous vaginal birth (eight trials; n = 11,202; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05); breastfeeding at six to eight weeks (one trial, n = 1147; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06); and very positive views of care (two trials, n = 1207; RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.15). Allocation to an alternative setting decreased the likelihood of epidural analgesia (eight trials, n = 10.931; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87); oxytocin augmentation of labour (eight trials, n = 11,131; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88); instrumental vaginal birth (eight trials, n = 11,202; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and episiotomy (eight trials, n = 11,055; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90). There was no apparent effect on other adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Care by the same or separate staff had no apparent effects. No conclusions could be drawn regarding the effects of continuity of caregiver or architectural characteristics. In several of the trials included in this review, the design features of the alternative setting were confounded by important differences in the organizational models for care (separate staff for the alternative setting, offering more continuity of caregiver), and thus it is difficult to draw inferences about the independent effects of the physical birth environment.

Authors' conclusions: Hospital birth centres are associated with lower rates of medical interventions during labour and birth and higher levels of satisfaction, without increasing risk to mothers or babies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ellen Hodnett has given talks and has written about the importance of the birth environment, and she was the Principal Investigator for one of the trials included in the review. Soo Downe and Denis Walsh have completed qualitative and quantitative reviews of birth settings.

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
2
2
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 1 No analgesia/anesthesia.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 2 Oxytocin augmentation of labour.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 3 Epidural analgesia.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 4 Instrumental vaginal birth (forceps or ventouse).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 5 Caesarean birth.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 6 Spontaneous vaginal birth.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 7 Episiotomy.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 8 Postpartum hemorrhage.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 9 5‐minute Apgar score < 7.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 10 Admission to neonatal intensive care unit.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 11 Serious perinatal morbidity or mortality.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 12 Perinatal mortality.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 13 Serious maternal morbidity or mortality.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 14 Breastfeeding at 6‐8 weeks.
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ all trials, Outcome 15 Very positive views of care.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ same or separate staff, Outcome 1 Spontaneous vaginal birth.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ same or separate staff, Outcome 2 Serious perinatal morbidity or mortality.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ same or separate staff, Outcome 3 Serious maternal morbidity or mortality.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Alternative versus conventional birth settings ‐ same or separate staff, Outcome 4 Very positive views of intrapartum care.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

Abdullahi 1990 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Abdullahi L, Kongsgaard E, Mogensen K, Sass L, Bock JE. The significance of the environment for delivery at a special department [Miljoets betydning for fodsler pa specialafdeling]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 1990;152:732‐4. - PubMed
Begley 2009 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Begley C, Devane D, Clarke M. An evaluation of midwifery‐led care in the Health Service Executive ‐ North Eastern Area: the report of the MidU study. Report to the Health Service Executive‐North Eastern Area. November 2009:316 pp.
Bernitz 2011 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bernitz S, Rolland R, Blix E, Jacobsen M, Sjoborg K, Oian P. Is the operative delivery rate in low‐risk women dependent on the level of birth care? A randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2011;118(11):1357‐64. - PMC - PubMed
Byrne 2000 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Byrne JP, Crowther CA, Moss JR. A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;40(3):268‐74. - PubMed
Chapman 1986 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Chapman MG, Jones M, Spring JE, Swiet M, Chamberlain GVP. The use of a birthroom: a randomized controlled trial comparing delivery with that in the labour ward. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1986;93:182‐7. - PubMed
Hodnett 2009 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA, Mckeever P. Re‐conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the Place (Pregnant and Laboring in an Ambient Clinical Environment) pilot trial. Birth 2009;36(2):159‐66. - PubMed
Hundley 1994 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD, Glazener CMA, Milne JM, Turner M, et al. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 1994;309:1400‐4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Milne JM, Glazener CM, Lang GD, Turner M, et al. Satisfaction and continuity of care: staff views of care in a midwife‐managed delivery unit. Midwifery 1995;11(4):163‐73. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Hundley VA, Donaldson C, Lang GD, Cruickshank FM, Glazener CMA, Milne JM, et al. Costs of intrapartum care in a midwife‐managed delivery unit and a consultant‐led labour ward. Midwifery 1995;11:103‐9. - PubMed
    1. Hundley VA, Milne JM, Glazener CM, Mollison J. Satisfaction and the three C's: continuity, choice, and control. Women's views from a randomised controlled trial of midwife‐led care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1997;104:1273‐80. - PubMed
Klein 1984 {published data only}
    1. Klein M, Papageorgiou A, Westreich R, Spector‐Dunsky L, Elkins V, Kramer M, et al. Care in a birth room versus a conventional setting: a controlled trial. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1984;131:1461‐6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Westreich R, Spector‐Dunsky L, Klein M, Papageorgiou A, Kramer M, Gelfand M. The influence of birth setting on the father's behavior toward his partner and infant. Birth 1991;18:198‐202. - PubMed
MacVicar 1993 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. MacVicar J, Dobbie G, Owen‐Johnstone L, Jagger C, Hopkins M, Kennedy J. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;100:316‐23. - PubMed
Waldenstrom 1997 {published data only}
    1. Gottvall K, Waldenstrom U. Does birth center care during a woman's first pregnancy have any impact on her future reproduction?. Birth 2002;29(3):177‐81. - PubMed
    1. Waldenstrom U. Effects of birth centre care on fathers' satisfaction with care, experience of the birth, and adaptation to fatherhood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 1999;17(4):357‐68.
    1. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. A randomized controlled study of birth center care versus standard maternity care: effects on women's health. Birth 1997;24:17‐26. - PubMed
    1. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. Experience of childbirth in birth center care: a randomized controlled study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1994;73:547‐54. - PubMed
    1. Waldenstrom U, Nilsson CA. No effect of birth centre care on either duration or experience of breast feeding, but more complications: findings from a randomised controlled trial. Midwifery 1994;10:8‐17. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Chambliss 1992 {published data only}
    1. Chambliss LR, Daly C, Medearis AL, Ames M, Krayne M, Paul RT. The role of selection bias in comparing cesarean birth rates between physician and midwifery management. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1992;80(2):161‐5. - PubMed
Law 1999 {published data only}
    1. Law YYH, Lam KY. A randomized controlled trial comparing midwife‐managed care and obstetrician‐managed care for women assessed to be at low risk in the initial intrapartum period. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 1999;25(2):107‐12. - PubMed

Additional references

Annandale 1987
    1. Annandale EC. Dimensions of patient control in a freestanding birth center. Social Science and Medicine 1987;25(11):1235‐48. - PubMed
Brocklehurst 2011
    1. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d7400. - PMC - PubMed
Deeks 2001
    1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta‐analysis. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic reviews of health care: meta‐analysis in context. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
Fannin 2003
    1. Fannin M. Domesticating birth in the hospital: "Family‐centered" birth and the emergence of "homelike" birthing rooms. Antipode 2003;35(3):513‐35.
Hatem 2008
    1. Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S. Midwife‐led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Hauck 2008
    1. Hauck E, Rivers C, Doherty K. Women's experience of using a Snoezelen room during labour in Western Australia. Midwifery 2008;24:460‐70. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Olsen 2004
    1. Olsen O, Jewell MD. Home versus hospital birth. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD000352. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352. - PubMed
RevMan 2011 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Ulrich 2004
    1. Ulrich R, Quan X, Zimring C, Joseph A, Choudhary R. The role of the physical environment in the hospital of the 21st century: A once‐in‐a‐lifetime opportunity. http://www.healthdesign.org/research/reports/physical_environ.php (accessed 2004).

References to other published versions of this review

Hodnett 2005
    1. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Edwards N, Walsh D. Home‐like versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Hodnett 2010
    1. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D, Weston J. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources