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

Objectives To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth. Design Economic evaluation with individual level data from the Birthplace national prospective cohort study. Setting 142 of 147 trusts providing home birth services, 53 of 56 freestanding midwifery units, 43 of 51 alongside midwifery units, and a random sample of 36 of 180 obstetric units, stratified by unit size and geographical region, in England, over varying periods of time within the study period 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010. Participants 64 538 women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour. Interventions Planned birth in four alternative settings: at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units. Main outcome measures Incremental cost per adverse perinatal outcome avoided, adverse maternal morbidity avoided, and additional normal birth. The non-parametric bootstrap method was used to generate net monetary benefits and construct cost effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative thresholds for cost effectiveness. Results The total unadjusted mean costs were £1066, £1435, £1461, and £1631 for births planned at home, in freestanding midwifery units, in alongside midwifery units, and in obstetric units, respectively (equivalent to about €1274, $1701; €1715, $2290; €1747, $2332; and €1950, $2603). Overall, and for multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness when perinatal outcomes were considered. There was, however, an increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcome associated with planned birth at home in nulliparous low risk women, resulting in the probability of it being the most cost effective option at a cost effectiveness threshold of £20 000 declining to 0.63. With regards to maternal outcomes in nulliparous and multiparous women, planned birth at home generated the greatest mean net benefit with a 100% probability of being the optimal setting across all thresholds of cost effectiveness. Conclusions For multiparous women at low risk of complications, planned birth at home was the most cost effective option. For nulliparous low risk women, planned birth at home is still likely to be the most cost effective option but is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes.

[1]  Wendy J. Ungar,et al.  Economic Evaluation in Child Health , 2010 .

[2]  L. Curtis,et al.  Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016 , 2015 .

[3]  S. Petrou,et al.  Preference-based approaches to measuring the benefits of perinatal care. , 2003, Birth.

[4]  F. Lucas,et al.  Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  S. Bewley,et al.  Estimating intrapartum‐related perinatal mortality rates for booked home births: when the ‘best’ available data are not good enough , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[6]  M. Whittle,et al.  An estimation of intrapartum‐related perinatal mortality rates for booked home births in England and Wales between 1994 and 2003 , 2008, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  N. Marlow,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 , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  A. Ravelli,et al.  Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529 688 low‐risk planned home and hospital births , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  T O Jefferson,et al.  Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ , 1996, BMJ.

[10]  D. Walsh,et al.  Making normal birth a reality , 2007 .

[11]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  I. Hildingsson,et al.  Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004. A population‐based register study , 2008, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[13]  R. Liston,et al.  Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[14]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .