Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40175688›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2025

The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Childbirth Settings: A Systematic Review.

Vanessa Scarf, Habtamu Kasaye, Kate Levett, Emily Callander

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vanessa ScarfCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Vanessa.Scarf@uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3503-9610
Habtamu KasayeCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3759-2604
Kate LevettCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3784-4648
Emily CallanderSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7233-6804

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo sustain positive progress toward sustainable development goals as envisioned in goal 3 and beyond, safe and affordable care during pregnancy and birth for women, their families, and health facilities and professionals is essential. In this systematic review, we report the best available evidence regarding the cost and cost-effectiveness of birth in various settings, including hospitals, birth centres, and homes for women at low risk of complications from high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of cost and economic evaluation papers, following the comprehensive search of online databases, including Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and grey literature, using predetermined search strategies. Both partial and full economic evaluation studies were included, and we appraised them using Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) critical appraisal checklists for economic evaluation studies. Although we attempted to pool total incremental net benefit, the results were synthesised narratively without a meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity between primary studies.

findingsFrom 2307 identified studies, 11 studies (13 country level records from 11 countries) were included. Both direct and indirect costs of childbirth at home, midwife-led birth units (MLBUs), and hospitals were reported. Ten studies showed that births in MLBUs were less costly than hospital births, while home births were also reported to be less costly than hospital births in seven studies. Regarding cost-effectiveness, in Bangladesh, MLBUs generally showed better outcomes at lower costs than hospital births, while one site had higher costs. In Pakistan and Uganda, MLBUs displayed mixed results, with some being cost-effective and others more costly with poorer outcomes. In the Netherlands, MLBUs were less costly but had poorer outcomes, whereas home births were less costly and more effective. In Belgium, MLBUs were less costly but less effective in reducing caesarean and instrumental births, though they did reduce epidural analgesia use cost-effectively.

conclusionsMost studies found that births in MLBUs and at home were less costly than births in hospital. There is the potential for these settings to provide a cost-effective option for women through reduced intervention rates and favourable outcomes in high-income countries and could offer birthing options to women in low- and middle-income countries that includes care by skilled maternity practitioners in potentially more affordable settings.

Indexed as

Birth SettingCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery, ObstetricDeveloping CountriesFemaleHome ChildbirthHumansParturitionPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID40175688
PMCPMC12170722

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.