Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Global stakeholder perspectives of home birth: a systematic scoping review

Authors: Ginny Brunton, Samira Wahab, Hassan Sheikh, Beth Murray Davis

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Home birth is experienced by people very differently worldwide. These experiences likely differ by the type of stakeholder involved (women, their support persons, birth attendants, policy-makers), the experience itself (low-risk birth, transfer to hospital, previous deliveries), and by the health system within which home birth occurs (e.g., high-resource versus low- and middle-resource countries). Research evidence of stakeholders’ perspectives of home birth could usefully inform personal and policy decisions about choosing and providing home birth, but the current literature is fragmented and its breadth is not fully understood.
We conducted a systematic scoping review to understand how the research literature on stakeholders’ perspectives of home birth is characterized in terms of populations, settings and identified issues, and what potential gaps exist in the research evidence. A range of electronic, web-based and key informant sources of evidence were searched. Located references were assessed, data extracted, and descriptively analyzed using robust methods.
Our analysis included 460 full reports. Findings from 210 reports of studies in high-resource countries suggested that research with fathers and same-sex partners, midwives, and vulnerable populations and perspectives of freebirth and transfer to hospital could be synthesized. Gaps in primary research exist with respect to family members, policy makers, and those living in rural and remote locations. A further 250 reports of studies in low- and middle-resource countries suggested evidence for syntheses related to fathers and other family members, policy makers, and other health care providers and examination of issues related to emergency transfer to hospital, rural and remote home birth, and those who birth out of hospital, often at home, despite receiving antenatal care intended to increase healthcare-seeking behavior. Gaps in primary research suggest an examination is needed of perspectives in countries with higher maternal mortality and among first-time mothers and young mothers.
Our scoping review identified a considerable body of research evidence on stakeholder perspectives of home birth. These could inform the complex factors influencing personal decisions and health system planning around home birth in both high- and low- and middle-resource countries. Future primary research is warranted on specific stakeholders worldwide and with vulnerable populations in areas of high maternal mortality.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bassey Etowa J. Becoming a mother: the meaning of childbirth for African–Canadian women. Contemp Nurse. 2012;41(1):28–40.CrossRef
2.
Luyben AG, Kinn SR, Fleming VE. Becoming a mother: women’s journeys from expectation to experience in three european countries. Int J Childbirth. 2011;1(1):13–26.
3.
4.
Public Health Agency of Canada. Family-centred maternity and newborn care: national guidelines. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2019.
5.
(NICE) NIfHaCE. Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies: clinical guideline. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2017. p. 90.
6.
Gage AD, Carnes F, Blossom J, Aluvaala J, Amatya A, Mahat K, et al. In low-and middle-income countries, is delivery in high-quality obstetric facilities geographically feasible? Health Aff. 2019;38(9):1576–84.CrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Comeau A, Hutton EK, Simioni J, Anvari E, Bowen M, Kruegar S, et al. Home birth integration into the health care systems of eleven international jurisdictions. Birth. 2018;45(3):311–21.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sandall J. Place of birth in Europe. Entre Nous Eur Mag Sexual Reprod Health. 2015;81:16–7.
11.
MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ, Declerq E. Trends in out-of-hospital births in the United States, 1990-2012. NCHS Data Brief. Atlanta: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.
12.
Statistics Canada. Live births and fetal death (stillbirths), by place of birth (hospital or non-hospital). In: Canada S, editor. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2018.
13.
Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC). No. 372: Statement on planned homebirth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(2):223.CrossRef
14.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Position statement: home births. Australia: RANZCOG; 2017. p. 19.
15.
Hutton EK, Reitsma A, Simioni J, Brunton G, Kaufman K. Perinatal or neonatal mortality among women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: a systematic review and meta-analyses. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;14:59–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Reitsma A, Simioni J, Brunton G, Kaufman K, Hutton EK. Maternal outcomes and birth interventions among women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: a systematic review and meta-analyses. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;21:100319.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Montagu D, Sudhinaraset M, Diamond-Smith N, Campbell O, Gabrysch S, Freedman L, et al. Where women go to deliver: understanding the changing landscape of childbirth in Africa and Asia. Health Policy Plann. 2017;32(8):1146–52.CrossRef
18.
Montagu D, Yamey G, Visconti A, Harding A, Yoong J. Where do poor women in developing countries give birth? A multi-country analysis of demographic and health survey data. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e17155.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Global Health Observatory. Institutional births: data by country. In: Organization WH, editor. Geneva: Global Health Observatory; 2020.
20.
21.
Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, Campbell J, Channon AA, Cheung NF, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129–45.PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Geleto A, Chojenta C, Musa A, Loxton D. WOMEN’s Knowledge of Obstetric Danger signs in Ethiopia (WOMEN's KODE): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Kifle MM, Kesete HF, Gaim HT, Angosom GS, Araya MB. Health facility or home delivery? Factors influencing the choice of delivery place among mothers living in rural communities of Eritrea. J Health Popul Nutr. 2018;37(1):22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Ahmed M, Demissie M, Worku A, Abrha A, Berhane Y. Socio-cultural factors favoring home delivery in Afar pastoral community, northeast Ethiopia: a qualitative study. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):1–9.CrossRef
26.
Preis H, Gozlan M, Dan U, Benyamini Y. A quantitative investigation into women’s basic beliefs about birth and planned birth choices. Midwifery. 2018;63:46–51.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
29.
McCaw-Binns A, Askew I, Temmerman M, Spicer A, Chartrand-Hudson E. Listen to women: thriving before, during and after pregnancy. Plenary session. Vancouver: Women Deliver 2019; 2019.
30.
Ashley S, Weaver J. Factors influencing multiparous women who choose a home birth --a literature review. Br J Midwifery. 2012;20(9):646–52.CrossRef
31.
Coxon K, Chisholm A, Malouf R, Rowe R, Hollowell J. What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Feeley C, Burns E, Adams E, Thomson G. Why do some women choose to freebirth? A meta-thematic synthesis, part one. Evid Based Midwifery. 2015;13(1):4–9.
33.
Fox D, Sheehan A, Homer C. Experiences of women planning a home birth who require intrapartum transfer to hospital: a metasynthesis of the qualitative literature. Int J Childbirth. 2014;4(2):103–19.CrossRef
34.
Healy M, Bamidele O, Gillen P. Women’s experiences of planning a home birth with maternity care providers in middle to high-income countries: a systematic review protocol; 2020.
35.
Hill L. Women’s experiences of planned home birth: a review of the literature. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2020;30(1):89–93.
36.
Hoang H, Le Q, Ogden K. Women’s maternity care needs and related service models in rural areas: a comprehensive systematic review of qualitative evidence. Women Birth. 2014;27(4):233–41.PubMedCrossRef
37.
O'Driscoll T, Kelly L, Payne L, St Pierre-Hansen N, Cromarty H, et al. Delivering away from home: the perinatal experiences of First Nations women in northwestern Ontario. Can J Rural Med (Joule Inc). 2011;16(4):126–30.
38.
Madi BC. Women’s decision-making and factors affecting their choice of place of delivery: systematic review and qualitative study: University of Surrey; 2001.
39.
Hollowell J, Li Y, Malouf R, Buchanan J. Women’s birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):213.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Henshall C, Taylor B, Kenyon S. A systematic review to examine the evidence regarding discussions by midwives, with women, around their options for where to give birth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Feyer ISS, Monticelli M, Volkmer C, Burigo RA. Brazilian scientific publications of obstetrical nurses on home delivery: systematic literature review. Texto Contexto Enfermagem. 2013;22(1):247–56.CrossRef
42.
Munabi-Babigumira S, Glenton C, Lewin S, Fretheim A, Nabudere H. Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:2.
43.
Hutton E, Reitsma A, Thorpe J, Brunton G, Kaufman K. Protocol: systematic review and meta-analyses of birth outcomes for women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Borrelli SE, Spiby H, Walsh D. The kaleidoscopic midwife: a conceptual metaphor illustrating first-time mothers’ perspectives of a good midwife during childbirth. A grounded theory study. Midwifery. 2016;39:103–11.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Borrelli SE, Walsh D, Spiby H. First-time mothers’ choice of birthplace: influencing factors, expectations of the midwife’s role and perceived safety. J Adv Nursing. 2017;73(8):1937–46.CrossRef
46.
Borquez HA, Wiegers TA. A comparison of labour and birth experiences of women delivering in a birthing centre and at home in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2006;22(4):339–47.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Bastian H. Personal beliefs and alternative childbirth choices: a survey of 552 women who planned to give birth at home. Birth. 1993;20(4):186–92.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Broussart A. Self-efficacy for childbirth: a qualitative study of pregnant women planning homebirth; 1995.
49.
Arcia A. US nulliparas’ perceptions of roles and of the birth experience as predictors of their delivery preferences. Midwifery. 2013;29(8):885–94.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Holten L, de Miranda E. Women’s motivations for having unassisted birth or high-risk homebirth: an exploration of the literature on ‘birthing outside the system’. Midwifery. 2016;38:55–62.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Janssen PA, Carty EA, Reime B. Satisfaction with planned place of birth among midwifery clients in British Columbia. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006;51(2):91–7.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Janssen PA, Henderson AD, Saraswathi V. The experience of planned home birth: views of the first 500 women. Birth. 2009;36(4):297–304.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Kornelsen J, Grzybowski S. The reality of resistance: the experiences of rural parturient women. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006;51(4):260–5.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Kornelsen J, Kotaska A, Waterfall P, Willie L, Wilson D. The geography of belonging: the experience of birthing at home for First Nations women. Health Place. 2010;16(4):638–45.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Kornelsen J, Kotaska A, Waterfall P, Willie L, Wilson D. Alienation and resilience: the dynamics of birth outside their community for rural First Nations women. Int J Indig Health. 2011;7(1):55–64.CrossRef
56.
Lawford KM, Giles AR, Bourgeault IL. Canada’s evacuation policy for pregnant First Nations women: resignation, resilience, and resistance. Women Birth. 2018;31(6):479–88.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Murray-Davis B, McDonald H, Reitsma 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.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Murray-Davis B, McNiven P, McDonald H, Malott A, Elarar L, Hutton E. Why home birth? A qualitative study exploring women’s decision making about place of birth in two Canadian provinces. Midwifery. 2012;28(5):576–81.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Zelek B, Orrantia E, Poole H, Strike J. Home or away? Factors affecting where women choose to give birth. Can Fam Physician. 2007;53(1):78–83.PubMedCentral
60.
61.
Brocklehurst P, Puddicombe D, Hollowell J, Stewart M, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, 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.PubMedCrossRef
62.
College of Midwives of Ontario. Professional standards for midwives. Toronto: College of Midwives of Ontario; 2018. p. 7.
63.
64.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
65.
Peersman G, Oliver S. EPPI-Centre health promotion keywording strategy. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education; 1997.
66.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
68.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Muthne-Kaas H, Carlesen B, Colvin CJ, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
Vedam S, Stoll K, McRae DN, Korchinski M, Velasquez R, Wang J, et al. Patient-led decision making: measuring autonomy and respect in Canadian maternity care. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(3):586–94.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
71.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef
72.
73.
Rees R, Oliver S. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2017.
74.
Ayenew AA, Nigussie AA, Zewdu BF. Childbirth at home and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Public Health. 2021;79(1):1–18.CrossRef
75.
Lorenze DL. Women’s lived experiences of giving birth in Ghana: a metasynthesis of the literature. Int J Childbirth. 2020;10(3):126–39.CrossRef
76.
de Lima CM, Pavoski J, Silvestre GCSB, do Nascimento GNX, Magalhaes DSS, Ferro RBC. Modelo de assistência ao parto normal: atuação das parteiras no Brasil. Enfermagem Brasil. 2021;20(1):109–23.CrossRef
77.
Cursino TP, Benincasa M. Planned home birth in Brazil: a systematic review. Cien Saude Colet. 2018;25(4):1433–44.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Blanchard AK, Bruce SG, Jayanna K, Gurav K, Mohan HL, Avery L, et al. An exploration of decision-making processes on infant delivery site from the perspective of pregnant women, new mothers, and their families in northern Karnataka, India. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(9):2074–80.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Speizer IS, Story WT, Singh K. Factors associated with institutional delivery in Ghana: the role of decision-making autonomy and community norms. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):398.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
80.
Osamor PE, Grady C. Women’s autonomy in health care decision-making in developing countries: a synthesis of the literature. Int J Womens Health. 2016;8:191.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Dahlberg M, Södergård B, Thorson A, Alfvén T, Awiti-Ujiji O. Being perceived as ‘a real woman’or following one's own convictions: a qualitative study to understand individual, family, and community influences on the place of childbirth in Busia, Kenya. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(3):326–42.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Lessa HF, Tyrrell MAR, Alves VH, Rodrigues DP. Social relations and the option for planned home birth: an institutional ethnographic study. Online Braz J Nurs. 2014;13(2):239–49.CrossRef
83.
Treacy L, Sagbakken M. Exploration of perceptions and decision-making processes related to childbirth in rural Sierra Leone. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–12.CrossRef
84.
Treacy L, Bolkan HA, Sagbakken M. Distance, accessibility and costs. Decision-making during childbirth in rural Sierra Leone: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0188280.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
85.
Prost A, Colbourn T, Seward N, Azad K, Coomarasamy A, Copas A, et al. Women’s groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in low-resource settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;381(9879):1736–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
86.
Sharma BB, Jones L, Loxton DJ, Booth D, Smith R. Systematic review of community participation interventions to improve maternal health outcomes in rural South Asia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):327.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
87.
Norton J. Why women freebirth: a modified systematic review. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2020;30(40):19–34.
88.
Brunton G, Ramkumar K. Freebirth in high-resource countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis protocol. UK: University of York; 2021. PROSPERO, in press.
89.
Macdonald D, Etowa J, Helwig M. Experiences of women who have planned unassisted home births: a systematic review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2019;17(1):16–21.
90.
Bohren MA, Hunter EC, Munthe-Kaas HM, Souza JP, Vogel JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
91.
Wong KL, Benova L, Campbell OM. A look back on how far to walk: systematic review and meta-analysis of physical access to skilled care for childbirth in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184432.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
92.
Glei D, Goldman N. Understanding ethnic variation in pregnancy-related care in rural Guatemala. Ethn Health. 2000;5(1):5–22.PubMedCrossRef
93.
94.
Marriott R, Reibel T, Coffin J, Gliddon J, Griffin D, Robinson M, et al. “Our culture, how it is to be us”—listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing. Women Birth. 2019;32(5):391–403.PubMedCrossRef
95.
96.
Cronin de Chavez A, Backett-Milburn K, Parry O, Platt S. Understanding and researching wellbeing: its usage in different disciplines and potential for health research and health promotion. Health Educ J. 2005;64(1):70–87.CrossRef
97.
98.
Ciliska D. Introduction to evidence-informed decision making; 2012.
Metadata
Title
Global stakeholder perspectives of home birth: a systematic scoping review
Authors
Ginny Brunton
Samira Wahab
Hassan Sheikh
Beth Murray Davis
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01837-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Protocol

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

Research

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions

Protocol

Evaluating measures of quality of life in adult scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Protocol

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs in individuals with schizophrenia during medium- to long-term treatment: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Research

Text mining to support abstract screening for knowledge syntheses: a semi-automated workflow

Research

Meta-analysis of the association between angiotensin pathway inhibitors and COVID-19 severity and mortality