Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals: A Cohort Comparison

Patrick Thornton, Barbara L. McFarlin, Chang Park, Kristin Rankin, Mavis Schorn, Lorna Finnegan, Susan Stapleton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: High rates of cesarean birth are a significant health care quality issue, and birth centers have shown potential to reduce rates of cesarean birth. Measuring this potential is complicated by lack of randomized trials and limited observational comparisons. Cesarean rates vary by provider type, setting, and clinical and nonclinical characteristics of women, but our understanding of these dynamics is incomplete. Methods: We sought to isolate labor setting from other risk factors in order to assess the effect of birth centers on the odds of cesarean birth. We generated low-risk cohorts admitted in labor to hospitals (n = 2527) and birth centers (n = 8776) using secondary data obtained from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC). All women received prenatal care in the birth center and midwifery care in labor, but some chose hospital admission for labor. Analysis was intent to treat according to site of admission in spontaneous labor. We used propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression to control for cohort differences and measured effect sizes associated with setting. Results: There was a 37% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79) to 38% (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.79) decreased odds of cesarean in the birth center cohort and a remarkably low overall cesarean rate of less than 5% in both cohorts. Discussion: These findings suggest that low rates of cesarean in birth centers are not attributable to labor setting alone. The entire birth center care model, including prenatal preparation and relationship-based midwifery care, should be studied, promoted, and implemented by policy makers interested in achieving appropriate cesarean rates in the United States.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)40-48
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Midwifery and Women's Health
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Birthing Centers
Delivery Rooms
Birth Rate
Midwifery
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Propensity Score
Prenatal Care
Quality of Health Care
Administrative Personnel
Logistic Models
Parturition

Keywords

  • birth centers
  • cesarean birth
  • intrapartum care
  • perinatal safety
  • propensity score

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Maternity and Midwifery

Cite this

Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals : A Cohort Comparison. / Thornton, Patrick; McFarlin, Barbara L.; Park, Chang; Rankin, Kristin; Schorn, Mavis; Finnegan, Lorna; Stapleton, Susan.

In: Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01.01.2017, p. 40-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thornton, Patrick ; McFarlin, Barbara L. ; Park, Chang ; Rankin, Kristin ; Schorn, Mavis ; Finnegan, Lorna ; Stapleton, Susan. / Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals : A Cohort Comparison. In: Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health. 2017 ; Vol. 62, No. 1. pp. 40-48.
@article{3223e3e20ff848d5a28a3d7bd42cbd72,
title = "Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals: A Cohort Comparison",
abstract = "Introduction: High rates of cesarean birth are a significant health care quality issue, and birth centers have shown potential to reduce rates of cesarean birth. Measuring this potential is complicated by lack of randomized trials and limited observational comparisons. Cesarean rates vary by provider type, setting, and clinical and nonclinical characteristics of women, but our understanding of these dynamics is incomplete. Methods: We sought to isolate labor setting from other risk factors in order to assess the effect of birth centers on the odds of cesarean birth. We generated low-risk cohorts admitted in labor to hospitals (n = 2527) and birth centers (n = 8776) using secondary data obtained from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC). All women received prenatal care in the birth center and midwifery care in labor, but some chose hospital admission for labor. Analysis was intent to treat according to site of admission in spontaneous labor. We used propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression to control for cohort differences and measured effect sizes associated with setting. Results: There was a 37{\%} (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79) to 38{\%} (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95{\%} CI, 0.49-0.79) decreased odds of cesarean in the birth center cohort and a remarkably low overall cesarean rate of less than 5{\%} in both cohorts. Discussion: These findings suggest that low rates of cesarean in birth centers are not attributable to labor setting alone. The entire birth center care model, including prenatal preparation and relationship-based midwifery care, should be studied, promoted, and implemented by policy makers interested in achieving appropriate cesarean rates in the United States.",
keywords = "birth centers, cesarean birth, intrapartum care, perinatal safety, propensity score",
author = "Patrick Thornton and McFarlin, {Barbara L.} and Chang Park and Kristin Rankin and Mavis Schorn and Lorna Finnegan and Susan Stapleton",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jmwh.12553",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "40--48",
journal = "Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health",
issn = "1526-9523",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals

T2 - A Cohort Comparison

AU - Thornton, Patrick

AU - McFarlin, Barbara L.

AU - Park, Chang

AU - Rankin, Kristin

AU - Schorn, Mavis

AU - Finnegan, Lorna

AU - Stapleton, Susan

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Introduction: High rates of cesarean birth are a significant health care quality issue, and birth centers have shown potential to reduce rates of cesarean birth. Measuring this potential is complicated by lack of randomized trials and limited observational comparisons. Cesarean rates vary by provider type, setting, and clinical and nonclinical characteristics of women, but our understanding of these dynamics is incomplete. Methods: We sought to isolate labor setting from other risk factors in order to assess the effect of birth centers on the odds of cesarean birth. We generated low-risk cohorts admitted in labor to hospitals (n = 2527) and birth centers (n = 8776) using secondary data obtained from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC). All women received prenatal care in the birth center and midwifery care in labor, but some chose hospital admission for labor. Analysis was intent to treat according to site of admission in spontaneous labor. We used propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression to control for cohort differences and measured effect sizes associated with setting. Results: There was a 37% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79) to 38% (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.79) decreased odds of cesarean in the birth center cohort and a remarkably low overall cesarean rate of less than 5% in both cohorts. Discussion: These findings suggest that low rates of cesarean in birth centers are not attributable to labor setting alone. The entire birth center care model, including prenatal preparation and relationship-based midwifery care, should be studied, promoted, and implemented by policy makers interested in achieving appropriate cesarean rates in the United States.

AB - Introduction: High rates of cesarean birth are a significant health care quality issue, and birth centers have shown potential to reduce rates of cesarean birth. Measuring this potential is complicated by lack of randomized trials and limited observational comparisons. Cesarean rates vary by provider type, setting, and clinical and nonclinical characteristics of women, but our understanding of these dynamics is incomplete. Methods: We sought to isolate labor setting from other risk factors in order to assess the effect of birth centers on the odds of cesarean birth. We generated low-risk cohorts admitted in labor to hospitals (n = 2527) and birth centers (n = 8776) using secondary data obtained from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC). All women received prenatal care in the birth center and midwifery care in labor, but some chose hospital admission for labor. Analysis was intent to treat according to site of admission in spontaneous labor. We used propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression to control for cohort differences and measured effect sizes associated with setting. Results: There was a 37% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79) to 38% (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.79) decreased odds of cesarean in the birth center cohort and a remarkably low overall cesarean rate of less than 5% in both cohorts. Discussion: These findings suggest that low rates of cesarean in birth centers are not attributable to labor setting alone. The entire birth center care model, including prenatal preparation and relationship-based midwifery care, should be studied, promoted, and implemented by policy makers interested in achieving appropriate cesarean rates in the United States.

KW - birth centers

KW - cesarean birth

KW - intrapartum care

KW - perinatal safety

KW - propensity score

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008262937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008262937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jmwh.12553

DO - 10.1111/jmwh.12553

M3 - Article

C2 - 27926797

AN - SCOPUS:85008262937

VL - 62

SP - 40

EP - 48

JO - Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

JF - Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

SN - 1526-9523

IS - 1

ER -