Letters
Women's health
Volume 192 - Issue 12

Planned home and hospital births in South Australia, 1991–2006: differences in outcomes

Authors:  Marc J N C Keirse, Robyn M Kennare, Graeme R Tucker and Annabelle C Chan

Med J Aust 2010; 192 (12): 726-727. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03723.x
Published online: 21 June 2010
Download PDF (87 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

In reply: Dahlen and colleagues overlooked that we excluded births without professional antenatal care (n = 1217), ensuring that all 1141 planned home births in our study were cared for by registered midwives.1 Nonetheless, we appreciate their acknowledgement that our article contains useful recommendations. Yet, they failed to endorse these recommendations in their letter and in the earlier critique to which they refer. They instead draw attention to a lack of difference in total mortality, but dismiss large differences in intrapartum and asphyxia-attributed mortality through their misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Rare outcomes, such as these, inevitably have wide confidence intervals. However, it is wrong and misleading to use the lack of precision in how much more frequent they are as an argument to dismiss their significantly much higher frequency.

We tend to agree with the above correspondents, though, that proper integration of home birth care in maternity services might prevent some avoidable deaths that are a recurrent feature in Australian home birth studies.1-3 Indeed, we postulated this too.1 However, it is fallacious to assume that differences in outcome between Australia and other countries, to which the correspondents refer, are merely an issue of funding and access to hospital privileges for autonomous practitioners. The Netherlands,4 for example, has more than 40 000 home births a year, but only three midwifery academies, with a 4-year curriculum. Australia has less than 1000 home births a year, fewer than it has midwifery students, most of whom learn both nursing and midwifery within 4 years. Midwives in the Netherlands are medical professionals and carefully select only low-risk pregnancies for home birth.4 In Australia, on the contrary, many independent midwives accept home birth for pregnancies that are not low risk.1,2 Adherence to approved policies for planned home birth5 and collaboration with hospital services must be a prerequisite to their integration into maternity services. Unless leaders and teachers of the midwifery profession in Australia unequivocally condemn home birth for women with substantial risks, such as twin pregnancy or previous caesarean section, babies will continue to die needlessly, irrespective of any funding models.

Authors

  • Marc J N C Keirse1
  • Robyn M Kennare2
  • Graeme R Tucker2
  • Annabelle C Chan2
  • 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA.
  • 2. Epidemiology Branch, SA Health, Adelaide, SA.

Correspondence: marc.keirse@flinders.edu.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Women's health Perspective 1 September 2026 Open Access

Forty Years in the Making: Reporting on the Co-Creation of a National Roadmap for Birthing on Country Services for the Best Start to Life

Res McCalman, Anneka J. Bowman, Roianne West, Kristie Watego, Jyai Allen, Claire Clack, Sue Kildea, Sue Kruske, Melanie Briggs, Cleone Wellington, Rebecca Coddington, Yu Gao, Isabella Garti, Sascha Kowalenko, Sarah Ireland, Catherine Austin, John D. Boffa, Marah Prior, Kelsie Kahl, Bettina Chaseling, Sarah Khaw, Emily Armstrong, Donna Hartz, Yvette Roe

View more