Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Women’s birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature

Authors: Jennifer Hollowell, Yangmei Li, Reem Malouf, James Buchanan

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Current clinical guidelines and national policy in England support offering ‘low risk’ women a choice of birth setting, but despite an increase in provison of midwifery units in England the vast majority of women still give birth in obstetric units and there is uncertainty around how best to configure services. There is therefore a need to better understand women’s birth place preferences. The aim of this review was to summarise the recent quantitative evidence on UK women’s birth place preferences with a focus on identifying the service attributes that ‘low risk’ women prefer and on identifying which attributes women prioritise when choosing their intended maternity unit or birth setting.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Science Index, CINAHL and ASSIA to identify quantitative studies published in scientific journals since 1992 and designed to describe and explore women’s preferences in relation to place of birth. We included experimental stated preference studies, surveys and mixed-methods studies containing relevant quantitative data, where participants were ‘low risk’ or ‘unselected’ groups of women with experience of UK maternity services.

Results

We included five experimental stated preference studies and four observational surveys, including a total of 4201 respondents. Most studies were old with only three conducted since 2000. Methodological quality was generally poor. The attributes and preferences most commonly explored related to pain relief, continuity of midwife, involvement/availability of medical staff, ‘homely’ environment/atmosphere, decision-making style, distance/travel time and need for transfer. Service attributes that were almost universally valued by women included local services, being attended by a known midwife and a preference for a degree of control and involvement in decision-making. A substantial proportion of women had a strong preference for care in a hospital setting where medical staff are not necessarily involved in their care, but are readily available.

Conclusions

The majority of women appear to value some service attributes while preferences differ for others. Policy makers, commissioners and service providers might usefully consider how to extend the availability of services that most women value while offering a choice of options that enable women to access services that best fit their needs and preferences.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 190: intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. 2014. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 190: intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. 2014.
2.
go back to reference Department of Health. Maternity matters: choice, access and continuity of care in a safe service. London: Department of Health; 2007. Department of Health. Maternity matters: choice, access and continuity of care in a safe service. London: Department of Health; 2007.
3.
go back to reference Department of Health. Changing childbirth, part 1: report of the expert maternity group. 1993. Department of Health. Changing childbirth, part 1: report of the expert maternity group. 1993.
7.
go back to reference National Audit Office. Maternity services in England. Report by the comptroller and auditor general. London: The Stationery Office; 2013. National Audit Office. Maternity services in England. Report by the comptroller and auditor general. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.
11.
go back to reference Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.CrossRefPubMed Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. EPPI-reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. 2010. Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. EPPI-reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. 2010.
15.
go back to reference Hundley V, Ryan M. Are women’s expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer? BJOG. 2004;111(6):550–60.CrossRefPubMed Hundley V, Ryan M. Are women’s expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer? BJOG. 2004;111(6):550–60.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth. 2001;28(4):254–63.CrossRefPubMed Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth. 2001;28(4):254–63.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):139–44.PubMed Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):139–44.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Longworth L, Ratcliffe J, Boulton M. Investigating women’s preferences for intrapartum care: home versus hospital births. Health Soc Care Community. 2001;9(6):404–13.CrossRefPubMed Longworth L, Ratcliffe J, Boulton M. Investigating women’s preferences for intrapartum care: home versus hospital births. Health Soc Care Community. 2001;9(6):404–13.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Donaldson C, Hundley V, Mapp T. Willingness to pay: a method for measuring preferences for maternity care? Birth. 1998;25(1):32–9.CrossRefPubMed Donaldson C, Hundley V, Mapp T. Willingness to pay: a method for measuring preferences for maternity care? Birth. 1998;25(1):32–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J, Ryan M, van Teijlingen E, Farmer J, Ireland J, Thomson E, Kiger A, Bryers H. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG. 2008;115(5):560–9.CrossRefPubMed Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J, Ryan M, van Teijlingen E, Farmer J, Ireland J, Thomson E, Kiger A, Bryers H. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG. 2008;115(5):560–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Emslie MJ, Campbell MK, Walker KA, Robertson S, Campbell A. Developing consumer-led maternity services: a survey of women’s views in a local healthcare setting. Health Expect. 1999;2(3):195–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Emslie MJ, Campbell MK, Walker KA, Robertson S, Campbell A. Developing consumer-led maternity services: a survey of women’s views in a local healthcare setting. Health Expect. 1999;2(3):195–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Lavender T, Chapple J. How women choose where to give birth. Pract Midwife. 2005;8(7):10–5.PubMed Lavender T, Chapple J. How women choose where to give birth. Pract Midwife. 2005;8(7):10–5.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Rennie A-M, Hundley V, Gurney E, Graham W. Women’s priorities for care before and after delivery. British J Midwifery. 1998;6(7):434–8.CrossRef Rennie A-M, Hundley V, Gurney E, Graham W. Women’s priorities for care before and after delivery. British J Midwifery. 1998;6(7):434–8.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Rogers C, Harman J, Selo-Ojeme D. Perceptions of birth in a stand-alone centre compared to other options. British J Midwifery. 2011;19(4):237–44.CrossRef Rogers C, Harman J, Selo-Ojeme D. Perceptions of birth in a stand-alone centre compared to other options. British J Midwifery. 2011;19(4):237–44.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference van Haaren-ten Haken T, Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, de Vries R, Nijhuis J. Eliciting preferences for key attributes of intrapartum care in the Netherlands. Birth. 2014;41(2):185–94.CrossRef van Haaren-ten Haken T, Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, de Vries R, Nijhuis J. Eliciting preferences for key attributes of intrapartum care in the Netherlands. Birth. 2014;41(2):185–94.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hendrix M, Pavlova M, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Severens JL, Nijhuis JG. Differences in preferences for obstetric care between nulliparae and their partners in the Netherlands: a discrete-choice experiment. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;31(4):243–51.CrossRefPubMed Hendrix M, Pavlova M, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Severens JL, Nijhuis JG. Differences in preferences for obstetric care between nulliparae and their partners in the Netherlands: a discrete-choice experiment. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;31(4):243–51.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nouwens E, Nijhuis J, van Merode G. The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management. Health Policy. 2009;93(1):27–34.CrossRefPubMed Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nouwens E, Nijhuis J, van Merode G. The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management. Health Policy. 2009;93(1):27–34.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference van Haaren-ten Haken T, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, Budé L, de Vries R, Nijhuis J. Preferred place of birth: characteristics and motives of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2012;28(5):609–18.CrossRef van Haaren-ten Haken T, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, Budé L, de Vries R, Nijhuis J. Preferred place of birth: characteristics and motives of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2012;28(5):609–18.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Grigg C, Tracy SK, Daellenbach R, Kensington M, Schmied V. An exploration of influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the evaluating maternity units study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–14.CrossRef Grigg C, Tracy SK, Daellenbach R, Kensington M, Schmied V. An exploration of influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the evaluating maternity units study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–14.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Hoang H, Le Q. Trade-off between local access and safety considerations in childbirth: rural Tasmanian women’s perspectives. Aust J Rural Health. 2012;20(3):144–9.CrossRefPubMed Hoang H, Le Q. Trade-off between local access and safety considerations in childbirth: rural Tasmanian women’s perspectives. Aust J Rural Health. 2012;20(3):144–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Murray-Davis B, McDonald H, Rietsma A, Coubrough M, Hutton E. Deciding on home or hospital birth: results of the Ontario choice of birthplace survey. Midwifery. 2014;30(7):869–76.CrossRefPubMed Murray-Davis B, McDonald H, Rietsma A, Coubrough M, Hutton E. Deciding on home or hospital birth: results of the Ontario choice of birthplace survey. Midwifery. 2014;30(7):869–76.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Healthcare Commission. Towards better births a review of maternity services in England. 2008. Healthcare Commission. Towards better births a review of maternity services in England. 2008.
33.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2010. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2010. Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2010. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2010.
34.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2014. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2015. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2014. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2015.
35.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Rowe R, Hockley C, Brocklehurst P. Recorded delivery: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2006. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2010. Redshaw M, Rowe R, Hockley C, Brocklehurst P. Recorded delivery: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care 2006. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2010.
36.
go back to reference Bourke G. Support overdue: women’s experiences of maternity services, NCT and the national federation of Women’s institutes (NFWI). 2013. Bourke G. Support overdue: women’s experiences of maternity services, NCT and the national federation of Women’s institutes (NFWI). 2013.
37.
go back to reference Dodwell M, Gibson R. An investigation into choice of place of birth. London: NCT; 2009. Dodwell M, Gibson R. An investigation into choice of place of birth. London: NCT; 2009.
40.
go back to reference Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C, Marlow N, Miller A, Newburn M, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentral Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C, Marlow N, Miller A, Newburn M, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Hollowell J, Puddicombe D, Rowe R, Linsell L, Hardy P, Stewart M, Newburn M, McCourt C, Sandall J, Macfarlane A, et al. The birthplace national prospective cohort study: perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth. Birthplace in England research programme. Final report part 4. London: NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2011. Hollowell J, Puddicombe D, Rowe R, Linsell L, Hardy P, Stewart M, Newburn M, McCourt C, Sandall J, Macfarlane A, et al. The birthplace national prospective cohort study: perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth. Birthplace in England research programme. Final report part 4. London: NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2011.
42.
go back to reference Barber T, Rogers J, Marsh S. The birth place choice project: phase one. British J Midwifery. 2006;14(10):609–13.CrossRef Barber T, Rogers J, Marsh S. The birth place choice project: phase one. British J Midwifery. 2006;14(10):609–13.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Barber T, Rogers J, Marsh S. Increasing out-of-hospital births: what needs to change? British J Midwifery. 2007;15(1):16–20.CrossRef Barber T, Rogers J, Marsh S. Increasing out-of-hospital births: what needs to change? British J Midwifery. 2007;15(1):16–20.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Rowe R, Schroeder L, Puddicombe D, Macfarlane A, Newburn M, McCourt C. Mapping maternity care. The configuration of maternity care in England. Birthplace in England research programme. Final report part 3. London: NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2011. Redshaw M, Rowe R, Schroeder L, Puddicombe D, Macfarlane A, Newburn M, McCourt C. Mapping maternity care. The configuration of maternity care in England. Birthplace in England research programme. Final report part 3. London: NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2011.
Metadata
Title
Women’s birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature
Authors
Jennifer Hollowell
Yangmei Li
Reem Malouf
James Buchanan
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0998-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2016 Go to the issue