The British system of childbirth with a very low rate of home childbirth is compared to that in The Netherlands, a country with a relatively high percentage of home deliveries. The analysis explores three possible explanations: the structure of the health professions in both countries, the structure of their health systems, and the use of scientific information in guiding policy decisions on birth place. Differences in the professional status and training programs of midwives between The Netherlands and the United Kingdom affected the distribution of home versus institutional deliveries in the two countries. Reimbursement schemes in The Netherlands have been important in maintaining a high percentage of births at home in this country. In the United Kingdom centralized planning and the influence of medical thinking played major roles in accelerating the shift from home to hospital deliveries in the National Health Service.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshfordJ. R.Policies for maternity care in England and Wales: Too fast or too slow? In The Place of Birth, edited by KitzingerS.DavisJ., pp. 14–43. Oxford University Press, London, 1978.
2.
TiddensH. A.HeestersJ.van de ZandeJ.Health services in The Netherlands. In Comparative Health Systems: Descriptive Analyses of Fourteen National Health Systems, edited by RaffelM. W., pp. 371–418. Pennsylvania State University Press, Philadelphia, 1984.
3.
Child birth in Holland. Notes and news. The Lancet2: 534, 1984.
4.
KloostermanG. J.The Dutch system of home births. In The Place of Birth, edited by KitzingerS.DavisJ., pp. 85–92. Oxford University Press, London, 1978.
5.
ScherjonS.A comparison between the organization of obstetrics in Denmark and The Netherlands. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.93: 684–689, 1986.
6.
GlaserW. A.Financial Decisions in European Health Insurance. A First Report. New School for Social Research, New York, 1986.
7.
HuntingfordP.Obstetric practice: Past, present, and future. In The Place of Birth, edited by KitzingerS.DavisJ., pp. 229–250. Oxford University Press, London, 1978.
8.
RichardsM. P. M.Innovation in medical practice: Obstetricians and the induction of labor in Britain. Soc. Sci. Med.9: 595–602, 1975.
9.
BallantyneJ. W.A plea for a pro-maternity hospital. Br. Med. J.1: 813–814, 1901.
Ministry of Health. Report of the Working Party on Midwives. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1949.
13.
TreffersP. E.Personal communication.
14.
BlackN.Do general practitioner deliveries constitute a perinatal mortality risk?Br. Med. J.284: 488–490, 1982.
15.
KleinM.A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.90: 118–128, 1983.
16.
ShaxtedE. J.Letter to the editor in reply to: Do general practitioners deliveries constitute a perinatal mortality risk?Br. Med. J.284: 822, 1982.
17.
NicolH.Letter to the editor in reply to: Do general practitioners deliveries constitute a perinatal mortality risk?Br. Med. J.284: 822–823, 1982.
18.
ValentineB. H.Letter to the editor in reply to: Do general practitioners deliveries constitute a perinatal mortality risk?Br. Med. J.284: 1267–1268, 1982.
19.
FryJ.HasterJ. C.Primary Health Care 2000, pp. 184–193. Churchill Livingstone Inc., New York, 1986.
20.
BantaH. D.KempK. B.The Management of Health Care Technology in Nine Countries, pp. 151–166. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 1982.
21.
Editorial: A time to be born. The Lancet2: 1183–1184, 1974.
22.
Editorial: Medicine on television. Br. Med. J.1: 539, 1975.
23.
ReidR.Letter to the editor in reply to: Medicine on television. Br. Med. J.1: 732, 1975.
24.
MasseyG.BatesR.Letter to the editor in reply to: Medicine on television. Br. Med. J.1: 732–733, 1975.
25.
RobinsonJ.Letter to the editor in reply to: Elective induction of labor. The Lancet2: 1088, 1975.
26.
CoxB. S.Letter to the editor in reply to: Elective induction of labor. The Lancet2: 1242, 1975.
27.
RobinsonJ.Letter to the editor in reply to: Elective induction of labor. The Lancet2: 1242, 1975.
28.
Editorial: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 1648–1649, 1981.
29.
SelsonM.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 1870, 1981.
30.
BardonD.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 2052, 1981.
31.
EdwardsP.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 2052, 1981.
32.
PentecostA. F.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 2052, 1981.
33.
CampbellR.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.283: 230, 1981.
34.
RosenM.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home? Br. Med. J.283: 433, 1981.
35.
JamesH.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.283: 433–434, 1981.
36.
Department of Health and Social Security. Hospital In-Patient Enquiry. Maternity Tables, Series MB4, 19. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Washington, D.C., 1981.
37.
Ministry of Health. Report of the Maternity Services Committee (Cranbrook Report). Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1959.
38.
Department of Health and Social Security. Domiciliary Midwifery and Maternity Bed Needs. Report of a subcommittee of the Standing Maternity and Midwifery Advisory Committee (Peel Report), Welsh Office, Central Health Services Council. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1970.
39.
KleinR.The Politics of the National Health Service. Longman, London, 1983.
40.
Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs. Facts Sheet on The Netherlands. Fact Sheet-4-E-1984. International Directorate, Rijswijk, 1984.
41.
Editorial: A policy of despair. Br. Med. J.1: 787–788, 1976.
42.
DavisJ.Letter to the editor in reply to: No place like home?Br. Med. J.282: 1869, 1981.
43.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Report on a National Maternity Service. London, 1944.
44.
CampbellH.LoweC. R.CochraneA. L.Letter to the editor in reply to: Priorities for health and social services. Br. Med. J.1: 1013, 1976.
45.
CostelloA.Letter to the editor in reply to: Priorities for health and social services. Br. Med. J.1: 1013–1014, 1976.
46.
KirkeP.Letter to the editor in reply to: Priorities for health and social services. Br. Med. J.1: 1014, 1976.
47.
HumphreysD. L. O.Letter to the editor in reply to: Priorities for health and social services. Br. Med. J.1: 1014, 1976.
48.
ForrestA. D.Letter to the editor in reply to: Priorities for health and social services. Br. Med. J.1: 1014, 1976.
49.
TewM.The case against hospital deliveries: The statistical evidence. In The Place of Birth, edited by KitzingerS.DavisJ., pp. 55–65. Oxford University Press, London, 1978.
50.
TewM.Effect of scientific obstetrics on perinatal mortality. Health Soc. Serv. J.91: 444–446, 1981.
51.
FryerJ. G.AshfordJ. R.Trends in perinatal and neonatal mortality in England and Wales 1960–69. Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med.26: 1–9, 1972.
52.
CampbellR.Home births in England and Wales, 1979. Br. Med. J.289: 721–725, 1984.
53.
TewM.We have the technology. Nursing Times81: 22–24, 1985.
54.
ChalmersI.Obstetrics practice and outcome of pregnancy in Cardiff residents 1965–73. Br. Med. J.1: 735–738, 1976.
55.
CampbellR.DaviesI. M.MacfarlaneA.Perinatal mortality and place of delivery. Population Trends28: 9–12, 1982.
56.
ChalmersI.LawsonJ. G.TurnbullA. C.Evaluation of different approaches to obstetric care: Part I. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.83: 921, 1976.
57.
ChalmersI.British debate on obstetric practice. Paediatrics58: 308–311, 1976.
58.
Van AltenD.Perinatal Sterfte 1970–1973. Verslag kraaminrichtung en Verloskundige huispraktijk van het Verloskundig Centrum te Wormerveer, Amsterdam, 1976.
59.
Van AltenD.KloostermanG. J.TreffersP. E.Letter to the editor in reply to: A place to be born. Br. Med. J.1: 771, 1976.
60.
O'BrienM.Home and hospital: A comparison of the experiences of mothers having home and hospital confinements. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract.28: 460–466, 1978.
