BackgroundThere is worldwide debate surrounding the safety and appropriateness of different birthplaces for well women. One of the primary objectives of the Evaluating Maternity Units prospective cohort study was to compare the clinical outcomes for well women, intending to give birth in either an obstetric-led tertiary hospital or a free-standing midwifery-led primary maternity unit. This paper addresses a secondary aim of the study – to describe and explore the influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand, which has a publicly funded, midwifery-led continuity of care maternity system.MethodsThis mixed method study utilised data from the six week postpartum survey and focus groups undertaken in the Christchurch area in New Zealand (2010–2012). Christchurch has a tertiary hospital and four primary maternity units. The survey was completed by 82% of the 702 study participants, who were well, pregnant women booked to give birth in one of these places. All women received midwifery-led continuity of care, regardless of their intended or actual birthplace.ResultsAlmost all the respondents perceived themselves as the main birthplace decision-makers. Accessing a ‘specialist facility’ was the most important factor for the tertiary hospital group. The primary unit group identified several factors, including ‘closeness to home’, ‘ease of access’, the ‘atmosphere’ of the unit and avoidance of ‘unnecessary intervention’ as important. Both groups believed their chosen birthplace was the right and ‘safe’ place for them. The concept of ‘safety’ was integral and based on the participants’ differing perception of safety in childbirth.ConclusionsBirthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women’s experience of childbirth. This is the first published study reporting New Zealand women’s perspectives on their birthplace decision-making. The groups’ responses expressed different ideologies about childbirth. The tertiary hospital group identified with the ‘medical model’ of birth, and the primary unit group identified with the ‘midwifery model’ of birth. Research evidence affirming the ‘clinical safety’ of primary units addresses only one aspect of the beliefs influencing women’s birthplace decision-making. In order for more women to give birth at a primary unit other aspects of women’s beliefs need addressing, and much wider socio-political change is required.

birthplace is a profoundly important aspect of women׳s experience of childbirth. Birthplace decision-making is complex, in common with many other aspects of childbirth. A multiplicity of factors needs converge in order for all those involved to gain the confidence required to plan what, in this context, might be considered a 'countercultural' decision to give birth at a midwife-led primary maternity unit.

ObjectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in a freestanding primary level midwife-led maternity unit (PMU) or tertiary level obstetric-led maternity hospital (TMH) in Canterbury, Aotearoa/New Zealand.DesignProspective cohort study.Participants407 women who intended to give birth in a PMU and 285 women who intended to give birth at the TMH in 2010–2011. All of the women planning a TMH birth were ‘low risk’, and 29 of the PMU cohort had identified risk factors.Primary outcomesMode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and neonatal unit admission. Secondary outcomes: labour onset, analgesia, blood loss, third stage of labour management, perineal trauma, non-pharmacological pain relief, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality.ResultsWomen who planned a PMU birth were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.9%vs62.3%, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.39), and significantly less likely to have an instrumental assisted vaginal birth (10.3%vs20.4%, AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93). The emergency and elective caesarean section rates were not significantly different (emergency: PMU 11.6% vs TMH 17.5%, AOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; elective: PMU 0.7% vs TMH 2.1%, AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.41). There were no significant differences between the cohorts in rates of 5 min Apgar score of <7 (2.0%vs2.1%, AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.52) and neonatal unit admission (5.9%vs4.9%, AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.96). Planning to give birth in a primary unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar odds of all measured neonatal well-being indicators.ConclusionsThe results of this study support freestanding midwife-led primary-level maternity units as physically safe places for well women to plan to give birth, with these women having higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births and lower rates of interventions and their associated morbidities than those who planned a tertiary hospital birth, with no differences in neonatal outcomes.

Midwives, educationalists and researchers need to address the skills required for building social capital in rural midwifery practice. These skills are important in midwifery pre- and post-registration curricula.

Rural practice presents unique challenges and skill requirements for midwives. New Zealand and Scotland face similar challenges in sustaining a rural midwifery workforce. This paper draws from an international multi-centre study exploring rural midwifery to focus on the education needs of student midwives within pre-registration midwifery programmes in order to determine appropriate preparation for rural practice. The mixed-methods study was conducted with 222 midwives working in rural areas in New Zealand (n = 145) and Scotland (n = 77). Midwives' views were gathered through an anonymous online survey and online discussion forums. Descriptive analysis was used for quantitative data and thematic analysis was conducted with qualitative data. 'Future proofing rural midwifery practice' using education was identified as the overarching central theme in ensuring the sustainability of rural midwives, with two associated principle themes emerging (i) 'preparation for rural practice' and (ii) 'living the experience and seeing the reality'. The majority of participants agreed that pre-registration midwifery programmes should include a rural placement for students and rural-specific education with educational input from rural midwives. This study provides insight into how best to prepare midwives for rural practice within pre-registration midwifery education, in order to meet the needs of midwives and families in the rural context.