Dueling Statistics: Is Out-of-Hospital Birth Safe?

By Henci Goer

“[T]he best evidence in answer to the wrong question is useless.” Menticoglou & Hall 2002

Last week, a new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Planned out-of-hospital birth and birth outcomes.” This study looked at the safety of home birth using Oregon State birth certificate data and once again brought up the unclear debate on the safety of home birth.  Many experts agreed that the study was well done, but why is this research not returning the same results as other well conducted previous home birth studies?  Henci Goer, author and recognized expert on the topic of childbirth does an excellent job in comparing and contrasting this newest study with other recent home birth analyses, including the 2015 Canadian study that demonstrated different results.  Henci helps S&S readers to understand why this might be.  On Thursday, Jeanette McCulloch of BirthSwell interviews Melissa Cheyney, PhD, CPM, LDM and the Chair of the Midwives Alliance Division of Research, on her perspective on how childbirth educators can help families interpret the new study when making their own decisions about place of birth. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

Unravelling home birthWithin weeks of each other, two studies of out-of-hospital (OOH) birth were published that came to opposite conclusions on the safety of OOH birth for babies. On the one hand, we have Hutton et al. (2015), a Canadian study. Hutton compared 11,493 planned home births at labor onset attended by midwives matched to women who would have been eligible for home birth but planned hospital births with those same midwives. (Ontario, unlike the U.S., has an integrated system in which midwives move freely between home and hospital.) On the other hand, we have Snowden et al. (2015), an analysis of Oregon State birth certificate statistics collected after the question, “Did you go into labor planning to deliver at home or at a freestanding birth center?” was added to the birth certificate. This question enabled investigators to distinguish hospital transfers and assign outcomes to the correct category as well as exclude unplanned home births. (Unplanned home births shouldn’t be included if one is trying to determine the safety of planned OOH birth.) Snowden compared 3203 births planned at freestanding birth centers or at home at labor onset with 79,727 planned hospital births. All women were at term (> 37 weeks) with a single, head-down baby free of congenital anomalies.

What were their findings? Snowden found an excess of 0.9 more fetal (antepartum + intrapartum), 1.2 more perinatal (fetal + neonatal), and 0.8 more neonatal (death occurring by 28 days) deaths per 1000 in the population planning OOH birth after statistical adjustments for factors such as prior birth, prior cesarean, maternal health status (hypertension, diabetes), and demographic factors such as age, race, education, and payment source. In contrast, Hutton found no differences in intrapartum deaths, perinatal deaths (intrapartum + neonatal death), or neonatal deaths.

Both studies reported fewer cesarean surgeries in the OOH population. Snowden reported 24 fewer per 100 women, and Hutton reported a much smaller excess (2 per 100 in both first-time mothers and women with prior births, some of whom had prior cesareans), but this would be expected since women planning home births and women planning hospital births were attended by the same midwives whereas women planning hospital births in the Snowden study would mostly have been attended by obstetricians. The interesting thing is that Hutton found a difference at all, but that’s a discussion for another day.

These two studies join a parade of studies of OOH birth that reach contradictory conclusions on perinatal outcomes and agree that OOH birth reduces cesarean surgeries, a severe adverse outcome in its own right on the maternal side with potential for severe adverse perinatal outcomes down the line (Goer 2012a). I contend that it’s time to stop asking “Is it or isn’t it?” questions of OOH birth because it’s pretty clear that the answer is “It depends.” I think a much more useful question is . . .

“What Factors Influence Outcomes?”

To attempt an answer, I would like to compare and contrast Hutton and Snowden along with a couple of other studies that, like them, are well-conducted studies of OOH birth in a physician-led system of maternity care. One of them uses Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) data to analyze outcomes in 16,924 U.S. women planning home births at labor onset (Cheyney 2014). The other uses American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) data to analyze outcomes in 15,574 women planning birth at freestanding birth centers at labor onset (Stapleton 2013).

goer table jan 5 2015

As you can see, mortality rates are higher in the Snowden study compared with the same statistic in the other three. One possible explanation may lie in the limitations of harvesting data from birth certificates. The other three studies collected data from forms designed for evaluating OOH birth. Snowden et al. point out the potential for inaccuracy, citing as an example that 27 women among the 601 transfers reported that they had planned OOH births with physicians, which is undoubtedly a recording error. One wishes, too, for more detailed information on causes and timing of death. Stapleton reports 14 fetal deaths of which five were diagnosed on arrival at the birth center and the women immediately transferred to the hospital and another two that were born at the birth center because the women arrived too close to delivery to transfer. Snowden reports ten fetal deaths, two delivered at home and eight in the hospital. Could some of Snowden’s cases likewise be an antepartum demise? We don’t know. Nor do we know whether any of the five neonatal deaths Snowden reports were unrelated to planned birth setting.

Let’s assume, though, that the varying mortality rates among studies is at least partially attributable to factors other than the limitations of the data source. What else might these be? Snowden and colleagues’ thoughtful, fair minded discussion of their results helps us out here too.

They observe that the home birth attendant’s qualifications may be one. Three percent of their OOH births were home births attended by people with no qualifications such as relatives, and another 13% were attended by midwives who were neither Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) nor Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs). Cheyney, which, as you can see, reported intrapartum mortality rates greater than Hutton’s, found that 6% of their population were attended by non-credentialed midwives. All women in Hutton were attended by registered midwives (RMs). Snowden and colleagues point out that a movement is underway in the U.S. to bring all U.S. midwifery training in line with the standards of the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM). I can add that the movement is accompanied by efforts to legalize CPM-credentialed midwives in all states. Giving women access to licensed, regulated, credentialed midwives in every state should reduce the use of less qualified OOH birth attendants.

Snowden also notes that integrating OOH midwifery into the maternity care system could make a difference. Cheyney and colleagues agree. They write: “The lack of integration across birth settings . . . contributes to intrapartum mortality due to delays in timely transfer related to fear of reprisal” (p. 9). Supportive of this is that while Cheyney’s intrapartum mortality rates exceed Hutton’s, neonatal mortality rates are identical and similar to the neonatal mortality rates Hutton reports in its hospital population. It could be argued that Stapleton is a U.S. study too, and despite a non-integrated system, it has very low mortality rates, to which I would respond that birth centers are more likely to have formal relationships with physicians and hospitals than home birth midwives.

What, I wonder, might we find if researchers attempted to answer my proposed research question? What if they pooled data from these four studies and compared perinatal mortality and other serious adverse outcomes according to:

  • Credentialed or licensed vs. non-credentialed care provider
  • Credentialed or licensed care provider in an integrated vs. non-integrated system, including Stapleton in the integrated arm.

Admittedly, even the combined data probably wouldn’t have sufficient numbers to detect statistically significant differences between groups, and even if it did, association doesn’t mean causality. Still, Hutton’s and Stapleton’s findings suggest that OOH birth with qualified home birth care providers practicing in an integrated system results in perinatal loss rates no greater than in similar women planning hospital birth.

There’s still more. Snowden and colleagues note as well that banning hospital VBAC pushes women wanting to avoid elective repeat surgery into OOH birth, potentially to their detriment (and kudos to them for not blaming the victims). It wouldn’t be worthwhile to explore what factors might affect perinatal outcomes in OOH VBAC because only Cheyney has a sizeable number of them. That being said, some of the perinatal deaths in Cheyney’s population were in women having home births after cesareans (HBACs) (Cox 2015).

So what’s the bottom line here? The only factor the OOH community controls is the qualifications of its providers, and as I wrote above, work is proceeding on bringing those in line with ICM standards.

The other factors, providing a system in which OOH care providers can readily consult, collaborate, and transfer care and where VBAC is not only available on demand but managed in ways that best promote safety and maximize vaginal births, depend on the obstetric and hospital community. The OOH community is doing its part. It’s time for the obstetric community to step up to the plate and do theirs. But we’re not done until we also ask . . .

“What about the Risks of Planned Hospital Birth?”

This brings us to the other side of ledger. Cheney and colleagues observe that another reason that women with risk factors choose OOH birth is that they can’t find in-hospital care that supports physiologic birth. We have abundant evidence of the gross overuse of tests, drugs, restrictions, and procedures in hospitals, the toll of its consequent harms, and the low use of practices known to promote healthy, physiologic birth (Declercq 2006; Declercq 2013; Goer 2012). As we saw above, 24 fewer women per 100 in Snowden planning OOH birth had cesareans compared with women planning hospital birth, most of whom would have had obstetricians as care providers, while only two more women per 100 had cesareans in Hutton, where women planning hospital birth had midwife-led care. And as this chart from Listening to Mothers III, a national U.S. survey, makes clear, excess cesarean surgeries don’t occur in a vacuum.

Generic placeholder thumbnail

© Listening to Mothers III, Declercq 2013

Indeed, a good case could be made that the answer to the question “Is hospital birth safe for the low-risk woman?” is “No.” In light of that fact, the obstetric community should stop paying so much attention to the speck in their neighbor’s eye and attend to the beam in their own. If they did, everyone would benefit. Fewer women would feel the need to opt out of the hospital, and the 99% of women who plan hospital birth would be infinitely better off. It’s a win-win.


Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D., & Vedam, S. (2014). Outcomes of care for 16,924 planned home births in the United States: the Midwives Alliance of North America statistics project, 2004 to 2009. J Midwifery Womens Health, 59(1), 17-27.

Cox, K. J., Bovbjerg, M. L., Cheyney, M., & Leeman, L. M. (2015). Planned Home VBAC in the United States, 2004-2009: Outcomes, Maternity Care Practices, and Implications for Shared Decision Making. Birth.

Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., & Applebaum, S. (2006). Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection.

Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlich, A. (2013). Listening to Mothers III. Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection.

Goer, H., & Romano, A. (2012). Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach. Seattle, WA: Classic Day Publishing.

Goer, H., Romano, A., & Sakala, C. (2012a). Vaginal or cesarean birth: What is at stake for women and babies? A best evidence review. Retrieved from New York: http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/reports/cesarean/

Hutton, E. K., Cappelletti, A., Reitsma, A. H., Simioni, J., Horne, J., McGregor, C., & Ahmed, R. J. (2015). Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies.CMAJ.

Menticoglou, S. M., & Hall, P. F. (2002). Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus. BJOG, 109(5), 485-491.

Snowden, J. M., Tilden, E. L., Snyder, J., Quigley, B., Caughey, A. B., & Cheng, Y. W. (2015). Planned out-of-hospital birth and birth outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine373(27), 2642-2653.

Stapleton, S. R., Osborne, C., & Illuzzi, J. (2013). Outcomes of care in birth centers: demonstration of a durable model. J Midwifery Womens Health, 58(1), 3-14.

About Henci Goer

© Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.  Henci is preparing to launch Childbirth U in the first quarter of 2016.


Is it possible, in any of thes

January 5, 2016 07:00 AM by Charlene Hamilton
Is it possible, in any of these studies, to determine which of the negative outcomes in home or hospital were unpreventable (like a stillbirth, or congenital abnormalities)? It seems that making a distinction between deaths that just happened, and deaths that were impacted by the birthplace, would an important thing to do, but I can't tell if that is happening.

I have the same question as Ch

January 5, 2016 07:00 AM by Crystal Wright, LCCE, BA, HCHD
I have the same question as Charlene. I think a very important part of these studies is understanding the cause of death. I would also like to know who funded Snowden's study.

@Charlene Hamilton You are rig

January 6, 2016 07:00 AM by Henci Goer, BA
@Charlene Hamilton You are right, of course, that making the distinction between preventable and non-preventable perinatal deaths is important. That was why I wished we knew more about these deaths in Snowden. The study investigators took different approa

@Amy V. Haas, BCCE You're welc

January 6, 2016 07:00 AM by Henci Goer, BA
@Amy V. Haas, BCCE You're welcome! As you probably know, this kind of analysis is my idea of a good time. ;-)

@Crystal Wright Snowden et al.

January 6, 2016 07:00 AM by Henci Goer, BA
@Crystal Wright Snowden et al. was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

This is such a helpful post, n

January 6, 2016 07:00 AM by Emily Landry, LCCE, CPBD, CLC
This is such a helpful post, not just for understanding the seemingly-conflicting nature of these studies better, but for understanding how research that seems "good" can still be faulty for not looking at the right factors or asking the right questions. It's clear that it's not enough to just talk about hospital vs. out-of-hospital birth, but that we need to look at deeper factors as well. Fantastic!

Thank you, Henci, for this ins

January 6, 2016 07:00 AM by Amy V. Haas, BCCE
Thank you, Henci, for this insightful analysis! You raise some fascinating points!

Thank you Ms. Goer for your ca

January 7, 2016 07:00 AM by Elana Zelony
Thank you Ms. Goer for your careful analysis and interpretation of the data. You clarified the studies for me, and I feel better informed.

This summary of birth attended

January 7, 2016 07:00 AM by Judy Slome Cohain
This summary of birth attended by trained attendants will appear in next issue of BJOG as a letter The 5 quality planned homebirth studies: Janssen (2002), Janssen (2009), Hutton (2009), deJonge (2009) & Birthplace (2011), studied 348,583 planned attended homebirths. They all show planned homebirth has equivalent perinatal newborn outcomes but significantly less maternal morbidity and mortality. Hospital births always involve higher infection rates, less personal treatment, and overuse of cesareans, inductions, augmentations, epidurals, EFM, AROM, and Vaginal exams. 1 in 2,345 low risk women die at hospital births (1) and 1 in 1000 low-risk women almost die, ending up in Intensive care, from planned hospital birth (2). Not a single maternal death was documented at homebirth in the presence of a trained practitioner in the past 40 years. Compare the numbers: In the US over 300 women die annually of avoidable cesareans and inductions while only about 50 term newborns die of Newborn GBS. Vaginal exams significantly increase rates of Newborn GBS Disease (3) Yet, instead of avoiding vaginal exams, a million women a year with term pregnancies are made nervous about a bacteria, GBS, that is part of their natural intestinal flora and given massive doses of IV antibiotics in labor but not told of the much higher risk of dying if they plan a hospital birth. Cord prolapse is the only event with better outcomes in hospital, but is completely preventable during attended labor by avoiding vaginal exams. Fetal heart decelerations rarely happen at homebirth and are treated by position change and pain relief. Shoulder dystocia has better outcomes at homebirth. (4) There is no quality research supporting induction for postdates. (5) Meconium aspiration and TTN can be prevented by delaying the delivery of the body until the newborns lungs are drained. Ultrasound does not result in better outcomes, just more worried mothers. The only way to be certain to survive birth is to have a homebirth with a well trained attendant. 1. Mishanina E, Rogozinska E, Thatthi T, Uddin-Khan R, Khan KS, Meads C. Induction of labour. CMAJ. 2014;186(16):1247. 2. Danilack VA, Nunes AP, Phipps MG. Unexpected complications of low-risk pregnancies in the United States Caused by delivering in hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:809.e1-6. 3. Heath PT et. al. Group B streptococcal disease in infants: a case control study. Arch Dis Child 2009. 94: 674-680. 4.Kallianidis AF, Smit M, van Roosmalen J. Shoulder dystocia in primary midwifery care in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 5.Cohain JS. To what extent do English language RCT meta-analysis justify induction of low risk pregnancy for Postdates? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2015;44(5):393-7.

Thank you, Henci. I have been

January 8, 2016 07:00 AM by Andrea Ferroni
Thank you, Henci. I have been asked recently about the NEJM study and I will pass on your analysis.

I don't understand why the OOH

January 9, 2016 07:00 AM by Another Liz
I don't understand why the OOH birth promoters cannot see that just maybe, perhaps, proximity to surgical and neonatal services has an impact on neonatal survival. How will I counsel women on the safety of OOH birth? That poor outcomes are rare, that midwives must be trained and skilled, and that the distance to a hospital and advanced neonatal care does have an impact on survival rates in the rare event that an unforeseen and drastic complication occurs in the OOH setting. To suggest that the data are flawed and that any difference in outcomes is due to inherent limitations in the study is just plain delusion and lying. Women deserve to know what the truth is. Let's stop blowing sunshine. There is an increased risk to OOH birth - yes, even in low-risk women - due to the distance to advanced surgical and neonatal care. It's easy to minimize the risks of neonatal death when it's not your own child - but your client's.

Henci Goer: Birth Location

January 23, 2016 07:00 AM by His Doula | Relevant Articles | His Doula
Henci Goer: Birth Location Safety [?]


January 28, 2016 07:00 AM by Homebirth Conversation on Public Radio | Healthy Childbirth Classes, Rochester, NY
http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/homebirth-safety/ [?]

and Sensibility:?ÿ?Dueling

March 22, 2016 07:00 AM by Why I?m Choosing Homebirth | Sarah Bruss, Denver Birth Doula
and Sensibility:? ?Dueling Statistics: Is Out-of-hospital Birth Safe?? .? Henci Goer is the author of ?The Thinking Womanâ??s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal [?]

Dueling statistics?

March 17, 2017 05:51 AM by Lunarmama

This isn't a case of dueling statistics. One study was conducted in Canada where home birth is well integrated into the medical system, all midwives are highly trained medical professionals, standards for home birth eligibility are very strict and home birth's transfer to hospitals at high rates and at the slightest indication there could be trouble. Unfortunately, none of what I just said is true in the US, therefore, these two studies are incomparable. Henci Goer, I believe you have been in this debate for long enough to know this.

OMG waht a wonderful man is Dr Akereco thank you for everything

August 1, 2017 01:23 PM by Nancy Babar

My name is Nancy Babar am from Australia, this is to inform you that i have found a true spell caster who brought back my divorce husband in just two days after 3years of separation we are now happy indeed. You are a man of your word Dr Akereco you are really a father, my lover is now the kind of man i want him to be my times of tears are over now. please contact him on his email: drakerecospellcaster@gmail.com his still on Facebook Andrew, His Facebook name {Andrew Akereco} anyone who has problem in his or her relationship his the right place to go and it is 100% sure and guarantee you that your lover will surely come back just 48 hours so please contact him now on his USA number  +16503343969 his whatsapp number +2349064026626.

OOH births vs. FSB births

August 21, 2017 09:45 AM by Talia Schiff

This study analysis was very interesting to me in that there were fewer overall cesarean births in the OOH population, but that there were more "successful" births in Freestanding birth centers due to the fact that these centers have better relationships with physicians than homebirthing midwives. How can we work together with physicians to help the freestanding birth center model gain popularity and reduce negative birth outcomes? It seems to me that the next study should incorporate physician's attitudes towards birth centers, and interventions targeted specifically at OBGYN's to partner with birth centers to provide women with more satisfying birth experiences. 

To leave a comment, click on the Comment icon on the left side of the screen.  You must login to submit a comment.  

Recent Stories
What's New in the Journal of Perinatal Education – September 2017

Research Review: Mind in Labor Childbirth Education – Does It Improve Birth Outcomes?

Come Meet Some of the 100 Most Influential People in Healthcare During the Lamaze Advocacy Summit 2017