The Many Benefits of Doula Care

The word "doula" comes from Greek and means "woman's servant." It referred to the women who traditionally provided support to mothers in labor.

The Doulas of North America organization (DONA) defines a modern-day doula in the following way:

A birth doula is a person trained and experienced in childbirth who provides continuous physical, emotional and informational support to the mother before, during and just after childbirth.

Some doulas only work during labor itself, but most doulas work with women before and just after the birth as well. They give emotional support and information as needed during pregnancy, provide support and encouragement during labor, and then give early post-partum and breastfeeding support.

Research has shown that having a doula during labor can help lower the risk for a cesarean, and may also help increase breastfeeding initiation rates. 

Professional labor support is probably even more important for women of size because women of size tend to be subjected to more labor interventions and restrictions and have higher cesarean rates and lower breastfeeding rates than women of average size. Doulas may be one powerful way of improving outcomes among high-BMI women. 

Here is the most recent research supporting the importance of more wide-spread access to doulas.


References

Am J Manag Care. 2014 Aug 1;20(8):e340-52. Potential benefits of increased access to doula support during childbirth. Kozhimannil KB1, Attanasio LB, Jou J, Joarnt LK, Johnson PJ, Gjerdingen DK. PMID: 25295797

...Retrospective analysis of a nationally representative survey of women who delivered a singleton baby in a US hospital in 2011- 2012 (N = 2400)...Six percent of women reported doula care during childbirth. Characteristics associated with desiring but not having doula support were black race (vs white; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.77; 95% CI,1.03-3.03), and publicly insured or uninsured (vs privately insured; AOR = 1.83, CI, 1.17-2.85; AOR = 2.01, CI, 1.07-3.77, respectively). Doula-supported women had lower odds of cesarean compared without doula support and those who desired but did not have doula support (AOR = 0.41, CI, 0.18-0.96; and AOR = 0.31, CI, 0.13-0.74). The odds of nonindicated cesarean were 80-90% lower among doula-supported women (AOR= 0.17, CI, 0.07-0.39; and AOR= 0.11, CI, 0.03-0.36)...Increasing awareness of doula care and access to support from a doula may facilitate decreases in nonindicated cesarean rates.

Am J Public Health. 2013 Apr;103(4):e113-21. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301201. Epub 2013 Feb 14. Doula care, birth outcomes, and costs among Medicaid beneficiaries. Kozhimannil KB1, Hardeman RR, Attanasio LB, Blauer-Peterson C, O'Brien M. PMID: 23409910

...We calculated descriptive statistics for Medicaid-funded births nationally (from the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample; n = 279,008) and births supported by doula care (n = 1079) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2010 to 2012; used multivariate regression to estimate impacts of doula care; and modeled potential cost savings associated with reductions in cesarean delivery for doula-supported births. RESULTS: The cesarean rate was 22.3% among doula-supported births and 31.5% among Medicaid beneficiaries nationally. The corresponding preterm birth rates were 6.1% and 7.3%, respectively. After control for clinical and sociodemographic factors, odds of cesarean delivery were 40.9% lower for doula-supported births (adjusted odds ratio = 0.59; P < .001). Potential cost savings to Medicaid programs associated with such cesarean rate reductions are substantial but depend on states' reimbursement rates, birth volume, and current cesarean rates. CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid programs should consider offering coverage for birth doulas to realize potential cost savings associated with reduced cesarean rates.

J Midwifery Womens Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;58(4):378-82. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12065. Epub 2013 Jul 9. Doula care supports near-universal breastfeeding initiation among diverse, low-income women. Kozhimannil KB1, Attanasio LB, Hardeman RR, O'Brien M. PMID: 23837663

...We compared breastfeeding initiation rates (means and 95% confidence intervals) for 1069 women who received doula care from Everyday Miracles, a Minnesota-based organization that employs a diverse group of certified doulas, to a state-based sample of women with Medicaid coverage who gave birth in 2009 or 2010 and participated in the Minnesota Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey (weighted n = 51,721). RESULTS: Women who had doula-supported births had near-universal breastfeeding initiation (97.9%), compared with 80.8% of the general Medicaid population. Among African American women, 92.7% of those with doula support initiated breastfeeding, compared with 70.3% of the general Medicaid population. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that access to culturally appropriate doula care may facilitate higher rates of breastfeeding initiation. When supported in their nonmedical needs by birth doulas, the diverse, low-income patients of midwives and other maternity care providers may have a greater likelihood of initiating breastfeeding and experiencing the maternal and infant health benefits associated with breastfeeding.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 15;7:CD003766. [Epub ahead of print] Continuous support for women during childbirth. Hodnett ED1, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. PMID: 23857334

BACKGROUND: Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide,continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine...Twenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data...Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95)...AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Bonehead Ideas: High Cholesterol Equals High Cesarean Rates in Obese Women

Periodically, the obstetric world comes up with some bizarre theories as to why "obese" women have higher cesarean rates than women of average size.

The reasons behind higher rates is a valid question, but the way in which the obstetric world examines the question reveals much of their biases and assumptions around obesity.

One of their more persistent theories is the "Fat Vagina" theory, where they theorize that the vaginas of high-BMI women are lined with fat pads that will prevent a baby from getting out. Sadly, many doctors and midwives are still taught this theory as if it is established fact, when in truth, there is no data to back it up.

And of course, the current favorite among many providers is the "High Prenatal Weight Gain" theory, where women who gain more than the approved amount of weight are blamed for cesareans. And since any gain at all in obese women is considered "too much" by many providers, this may play a particularly potent role in the cesarean rate in women of size. But providers making a causal connection between high gains and cesareans completely ignore the role that fear and bias around high gains can play in many labors. It may not be high gains per se that cause more cesareans but rather the fears and interventions common in high-gain women (especially "high" gain obese women) that result in more cesareans.

One of the more ludicrous theories that doctors have come up with in recent years to excuse abysmally-high cesarean rates in fat women is the "Cholesterol Inhibits Myometrial Activity" theory.

Sadly, this theory gained a lot of mention in obstetric literature in recent years, despite very limited and dubious evidence to support it.

High Cholesterol Causes Cesareans?

In the Cholesterol Theory, high cesarean rates in fat women are supposedly caused by high cholesterol rates (since, you know, all fat women have high cholesterol) because high cholesterol rates supposedly impair the contractility of the uterine muscle.

Say what? Yeah, I know, that was my reaction too.

But yes, it was an actual theory put forward by a number of researchers in recent years. (And its kissin' cousins, that leptin or some other substance are the guilty parties instead.)

Because, you know, all fat women are defective and this explains how.

So the theory goes, if we give fat pregnant women statin medications, maybe that will cut their cesarean rate. Yes, there are actually doctors who have proposed doing this.

Fortunately, there is a recent study out that casts serious doubt on this bonehead Cholesterol Theory.

Problems with the Cholesterol Theory

I've written about this issue before, pointing out that the Cholesterol Theory has a number of problems.

First of all, many fat women do NOT have high cholesterol at all. (I'm one of them.) Many fat women have perfectly normal cholesterol levels, particularly during childbearing years. The fact that researchers assume that nearly all fat people have high cholesterol is symbolic of the typical assumptions researchers make about fat people and how these impact their ability to reach sound conclusions.

Second, the studies on "poor contractility" in obese women are quite small. This certainly raises the question of how whether the findings could be related to coincidence or confounding factors, rather than showing a true causal relationship. But virtually no one raises this question. They are happy to just jump to conclusions.

Third, please note that many of the studies supposedly showing "poor contractility" in obese women were done on women having planned cesareans with NO labor. How does this prove how they might have labored in real life? They took samples of the uteri before labor even started, and then did some lab tests on them, testing "contractility" in the lab.

Sorry, this is hardly indicative of real-life labor and birth, and since they did pre-emptive cesareans on these women, how can they prove that these in vitro "contractility" tests really have any relationship to how labor would have gone? There is just no way that this proves that there is something wrong with fat women's uteri.

Furthermore, they did not look for any other explanations for lower contractility in vitro. Studies show that fat women tend to have longer menstrual cycles and longer pregnancies. Planned cesareans like these were often done at 38 or 39 weeks, and if obese women tend to go into spontaneous labor closer to 42 weeks (either due to inaccurate dating from longer cycles or because of a tendency towards longer pregnancies), doing such an early cesarean would not reliably show whether their uteri were inherently "less contractile." Rather, it would simply suggest that these obese women were not even close to spontaneous labor yet and therefore less responsive to stimulants.

The bottom line is that these studies have a lot of issues.

While it's not wrong to propose a hypothesis for an observed problem, you have to be careful about jumping to conclusions too quickly. These studies relied on very small sample sizes, speculated about an obese woman's response to labor based on in vitro testing from a pre-labor cesarean, didn't explore alternate causes for the findings, and generalized assumptions about obesity and cholesterol levels in a very broad and questionable manner.

The Cholesterol Theory is FAR from a proven connection, although you'd never know it, based on the way many researchers discuss it. And the research certainly does not support routinely putting fat women on statin medications.

The Newest Study on Cholesterol and Cesareans

My biggest question last time I wrote about this issue was whether they had done any studies to see if the fat women who delivered vaginally had better cholesterol levels than the ones who had cesareans, or whether thin women with high cholesterol had more cesareans.

Well, finally we have a study directly addressing some of this. A recent study from New Zealand compared delivery method (cesarean vs. vaginal birth) with women's cholesterol levels at 14-16 weeks to see if there was a correlation between high cholesterol and cesareans.

They found there was NO correlation between the mother's cholesterol levels in early pregnancy and her delivery method. 

However, surprise surprise, they found that induction of labor was connected to cesareans. Imagine!

They concluded:

Elevated maternal cholesterol in early pregnancy is not a risk factor for first stage caesarean for failure to progress in overweight/obese women. 

Conclusion

This "High Cholesterol Causes Cesareans in Obese Women" theory is the kind of bad science that makes fat people so distrustful of medicine and doctors.

So often, it's all just based on ASSUMPTIONS about fat people and not on any real detailed study or logical questioning of theories.

Furthermore, the fact that several years ago they publicized this theory without having proven it and were even marketing the idea of giving statins was absolutely irresponsible.

Statins are CONTRAINDICATED in pregnancy; they are category "X" and may cause birth defects. Cholesterol and lipids play a very important role in fetal development. There is a reason why a pregnant woman's cholesterol rises during pregnancy; the baby needs it for development. Artificially lowering these levels may have devastating effects on the baby.

Critics responded that they were "only" suggesting putting fat women on statins in the last few months of pregnancy, so therefore there would be no risk of birth defects. But if these drugs can be so dangerous in early pregnancy, who knows what kind of harm they might cause late in pregnancy as well? There are other harms that can be caused to babies besides birth defects during organogenesis.

No one knows for sure what critical roles cholesterol and lipids play during late pregnancy. Pregnant women's cholesterol levels rise through pregnancy, suggesting that it has an important biological role to play in the end of pregnancy. Putting women on statins at the end of pregnancy may be just as harmful as at the beginning of pregnancy, just perhaps with more subtle problems than birth defects.

What it boils down to is that they were proposing using fat women's babies as lab rats to experiment on, based on extremely flimsy theories. This is UNACCEPTABLE.

There is completely insufficient evidence to support the idea that high cholesterol is the cause of the high cesarean rate in fat women, and the safety of statins in pregnancy at ANY stage is highly questionable. To suggest treatment with statins for anyone during any stage of pregnancy is risky and BAD science.

Furthermore, to be running stories in the media suggesting statin use in fat pregnant women before suitable research was done substantiating the Cholesterol Theory was reprehensible. It smacks of a few researchers looking for a "hook" to gain name recognition and funding (or a drug company looking for new revenue streams), rather than serious and responsible scientists pursuing a legitimate investigation.

You can read more about the original story here.

It is time for researchers to stop jumping to conclusions about fat women and pregnancy, time for them to examine their own faulty assumptions about obesity and how this distorts their research, time for them to stop using fat women's babies as lab rats for their own personal theories, and time for researchers to stop prematurely "spinning" preliminary research in order to get name recognition and research funding.

It's far too easy for care providers to blame the high cesarean rate in obese women on Fat Vaginas, High Cholesterol, High Prenatal Weight Gain or whatever other boogeyman is currently popular in the obstetric literature. This blames the victim and conveniently absolves themselves of blame.

It is long past time for obstetric researchers to stop blaming women and do the uncomfortable job of examining how their own practices and biases raise the cesarean rate in obese women.


References

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Jul 9;13:143. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-143. Elevated maternal lipids in early pregnancy are not associated with risk of intrapartum caesarean in overweight and obese nulliparous women. Fyfe EM, Rivers KS, Thompson JM, Thiyagarajan KP, Groom KM, Dekker GA, McCowan LM; SCOPE consortium. PMID: 23835080 Full text available here.

BACKGROUND: Maternal overweight and obesity are associated with slower labour progress and increased caesarean delivery for failure to progress. Obesity is also associated with hyperlipidaemia and cholesterol inhibits myometrial contractility in vitro. Our aim was, among overweight and obese nulliparous women, to investigate 1. the role of early pregnancy serum cholesterol and 2. clinical risk factors associated with first stage caesarean for failure to progress at term. METHODS: Secondary data analysis from a prospective cohort of overweight/obese New Zealand and Australian nullipara recruited to the SCOPE study. Women who laboured at term and delivered vaginally (n=840) or required first stage caesarean for failure to progress (n=196) were included. Maternal characteristics and serum cholesterol at 14-16 weeks' of gestation were compared according to delivery mode in univariable and multivariable analyses (adjusted for BMI, maternal age and height, obstetric care type, induction of labour and gestation at delivery ≥41 weeks). RESULTS: Total cholesterol at 14-16 weeks was not higher among women requiring first stage caesarean for failure to progress compared to those with vaginal delivery (5.55 ± 0.92 versus 5.67 ± 0.85 mmol/L, p= 0.10 respectively). Antenatal risk factors for first stage caesarean for failure to progress in overweight and obese women were BMI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR (95% CI)] 1.15 (1.07-1.22) per 5 unit increase, maternal age 1.37 (1.17-1.61) per 5 year increase, height 1.09 (1.06-1.12) per 1cm reduction), induction of labour 1.94 (1.38-2.73) and prolonged pregnancy ≥41 weeks 1.64 (1.14-2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated maternal cholesterol in early pregnancy is not a risk factor for first stage caesarean for failure to progress in overweight/obese women. Other clinically relevant risk factors identified are: increasing maternal BMI, increasing maternal age, induction of labour and prolonged pregnancy ≥41 weeks' of gestation.

Theories on Cholesterol, Leptin, and Myometrial Contractility

Med Hypotheses. 2011 May;76(5):755-60. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.02.018. Epub 2011 Mar 5. Proposed biological linkages between obesity, stress, and inefficient uterine contractility during labor in humans. Lowe NK, Corwin EJ. PMID: 21382668

Cesarean delivery has reached epidemic proportions in contemporary western healthcare. For otherwise healthy first-time (nulliparous) women at term gestation with a single fetus in a head down position, the most common clinical diagnosis prompting cesarean delivery is dystocia, including clinical terms such as uterine dysfunction, failure to progress, arrest of dilation and/or arrest of descent of the fetal head. In 2006, the cesarean rate for this lowest risk population of childbearing women was 26% in the United States despite the goal of Healthy People 2010 to reduce this rate to 15% from a baseline of 18% in 1998. While multiple lines of evidence suggest that the nulliparous uterus is particularly vulnerable to a diagnosis of uterine dysfunction during labor, pathophysiologic explanations for this dysfunction have not been well described. The acute stress response has been implicated as one factor in this dysfunction for many years, while more recently the growing epidemic of adiposity among women of childbearing age has been suggested as an additional pathway by which myometrial cell function may be disrupted. Using both clinical and in vitro evidence, we hypothesize a combined model in which pathways of acute stress and changes associated with maternal adiposity, particularly exaggerated levels of cholesterol and leptin, may independently and synergistically impair the contractile apparatus of the myocyte leading to the clinical diagnosis of uterine dystocia and subsequent cesarean delivery.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;195(2):504-9. Epub 2006 May 2. Inhibitory effect of leptin on human uterine contractility in vitro. Moynihan AT, Hehir MP, Glavey SV, Smith TJ, Morrison JJ. PMID: 16647683

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of leptin on human uterine contractility in vitro. STUDY DESIGN: Biopsies of human myometrium were obtained at elective cesarean section (n = 18). Dissected myometrial strips suspended under isometric conditions, undergoing spontaneous and oxytocin-induced contractions, were exposed to cumulative additions of leptin in the concentration range of 1 nmol/L to 1 micromol/L. Control strips were run simultaneously...RESULTS: Leptin exerted a potent and cumulative inhibitory effect on spontaneous and oxytocin-induced contractions compared to control strips...There was an apparent reduction in both frequency and amplitude of contractions. CONCLUSION: This physiologic inhibitory effect of leptin on uterine contractility may play a role in the dysfunctional labor process associated with maternal obesity, and the resultant high cesarean section rates.

Reprod Sci. 2007 Jul;14(5):456-66. Contractility and calcium signaling of human myometrium are profoundly affected by cholesterol manipulation: implications for labor? Jie Zhang, Kendrick A, Quenby S, Wray S. PMID: 17913965

The authors elucidate cholesterol's effect on human uterine contractility and calcium signaling to test the hypotheses that elevation of cholesterol decreases uterine activity and that oxytocin cannot augment contraction when cholesterol is elevated...Elevated cholesterol is deleterious to contractility and Ca2+ signaling in human myometrium. Cholesterol may contribute to uterine quiescence but could cause difficulties in labor in obese/dyslipidemic women, consistent with their increased cesarean delivery rates.

Obesity and Contractility

BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):343-8. Epub 2007 Jan 22. Poor uterine contractility in obese women.
Zhang J, Bricker L, Wray S, Quenby S. PMID: 17261121

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to elucidate the reason for the high rate of caesarean section in obese women. We examined the following hypotheses: (1) obese women have a high incidence of complications related to poor uterine contractility--caesarean section for dysfunctional labour and postpartum haemorrhage. 2) The myometrium from obese women has less ability to contract in vitro. DESIGN: First, a clinical retrospective analysis of data from 3913 completed singleton pregnancies was performed. Secondly, in a prospective study the force, frequency and intracellular [Ca(2+)] flux of spontaneously contracting myometrium were related to the maternal body mass index. SETTING: Liverpool Women's Hospital and University of Liverpool. POPULATION: The clinical study involved all women who delivered in one hospital in 2002. The in vitro study myometrial biopsies were obtained from 73 women who had elective caesarean section at term. RESULTS: Maternal obesity carried significant risk of caesarean section in labour that was highest for delay in the first stage of labour (OR 3.54). The increased risk of caesarean section in obese women largely occurred in women with normal- and not with high-birthweight infants. Obese women delivering vaginally had increased risk of prolonged first stage of labour and excessive blood loss. Myometrium from obese women contracted with less force and frequency and had less [Ca(2+)] flux than that from normal-weight women. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that these findings indicate that obesity may impair the ability of the uterus to contract in labour.

Preventing the First Cesarean: Don't Go to the Hospital Too Early

Dark line with squares is overall cesarean rate,
Light line with triangles is primary cesarean rate,
Line with diamonds that goes up and then plummets is the VBAC rate

As part of Cesarean Awareness Month, we are discussing the long-term implications of a high cesarean rate, as well as how to lower the sky-high cesarean rate in women of size.

One of the important parts of lowering the overall cesarean rate is preventing the first (or "primary") cesarean.

As you can see from the chart, the primary cesarean rate (middle line) has risen over the years pretty much in parallel with the overall cesarean rate, even as the VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) rate has drastically declined.

The VBAC rate has declined so strongly because many places have VBAC bans in place. Once a woman has that first cesarean, she usually has repeat cesareans thereafter, unless she is one of the lucky ones who can find a provider that is truly willing to support VBAC.

Thus the first step to lowering the high overall cesarean rate is to prevent the very first cesarean from happening whenever possible.

And one important step in preventing primary cesareans is not going to the hospital too early in labor. 

Research has shown that when women are admitted early in labor ("latent" labor), they have a much greater chance of having a cesarean than if they get to the hospital a bit later, when contractions are consistent and dilation starts to change more quickly ("active" labor).

In fact, a recent consensus statement from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Fetal-Maternal Medicine suggests that the definition of "active" labor be changed from 4 cm to 6 cm.

Lamaze International has highlighted this with their related discussions on "Six is the New Four."

This proposed change is based on research that suggests that labor tends to progress more slowly in the early stages of labor than recognized in previous guidelines, and that many "failure to progress" cesareans might be prevented by being just a little bit more patient during labor.

Below is yet another study that confirms the importance of not going into the hospital until labor is well-established and "active."

In this study, more than half the women were admitted during "preactive" labor, and those that were had more than twice the c-section rate of those who were admitted in active labor.

If half of women are regularly being admitted into the hospital during latent labor, this strongly suggests that delaying admission to the hospital until labor is truly in the "active" phase might help lower the primary cesarean rate significantly.

This may be a particularly important consideration for women of size. Some research suggests that "overweight" and "obese" women have longer labors, especially in the stage just before transition. Although no one has actually studied yet whether delaying admission until 6 cm in obese women would lower cesarean rates in that group, it certainly seems like a logical conclusion.

In combination with lowering unnecessary induction rates and being more patient in labor, delaying hospital admission until 6 cm might really help impact the cesarean rate in obese women.

Summary

The take-home message for mothers is that if you plan to birth in the hospital, don't rush to the hospital in early labor.

Obviously, if there is something that is concerning you or doesn't feel right, it's important to be evaluated, and you should not hesitate to go in and ask for evaluation. Certain other medical situations, of course, might also call for early evaluation; your care provider will help you determine the situations to be cautious about.

However, most of the time, there is no need to be in the hospital right away if labor has started. The sooner you go in, the more likely you are to have interventions like oxytocin augmentation and cesareans.

The take-home message for hospitals is to have stricter admissions policies, given that around half of women are being admitted in early labor. The secondary message is to allow more time in labor before moving to a cesarean (barring fetal distress); a "failure to progress" cesarean is too often a "failure to wait" cesarean.

Bottom line: To lower the rate of primary cesareans, wait till labor is well-established before going to the hospital, and practice more patience during labor before moving to a cesarean if all else is well. 


References

J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014 Jan;59(1):28-34. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12160. Epub 2014 Feb 11. Outcomes of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset admitted to hospitals in preactive versus active labor. Neal JL, Lamp JM, Buck JS, Lowe NK, Gillespie SL, Ryan SL. PMID: 24512265

INTRODUCTION: The timing of when a woman is admitted to the hospital for labor care following spontaneous contraction onset may be among the most important decisions that labor attendants make because it can influence care patterns and birth outcomes. The aims of this study were to estimate the percentage of low-risk, nulliparous women at term who are admitted to labor units prior to active labor and to evaluate the effects of the timing of admission (ie, preactive vs active labor) on labor interventions and mode of birth. METHODS: Data from low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset at term gestation were merged from 2 prospective studies conducted at 3 large Midwestern hospitals...RESULTS: Of the sample of 216 low-risk nulliparous women, 114 (52.8%) were admitted in preactive labor and 102 (47.2%) were admitted in active labor. Women who were admitted in preactive labor were more likely to undergo oxytocin augmentation (84.2% and 45.1%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 6.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.43-12.27) but not amniotomy (55.3% and 61.8%, respectively; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32) when compared to women admitted in active labor. The likelihood of cesarean birth was higher for women admitted before active labor onset (15.8% and 6.9%, respectively; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.02-6.37). DISCUSSION: Many low-risk nulliparous women with regular, spontaneous uterine contractions are admitted to labor units before active labor onset, which increases their likelihood of receiving oxytocin and giving birth via cesarean. An evidence-based, standardized approach for labor admission decision making is recommended to decrease inadvertent admissions of women in preactive labor. When active labor cannot be diagnosed with relative certainty, observation before admission to the birthing unit is warranted.

Previous Research on Early Admission in Labor

Midwifery. 2013 Dec;29(12):1297-302. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.014. Epub 2013 Jul 24.
Influence of timing of admission in labour and management of labour on method of birth: results from a randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery (COSMOS trial). Davey MA1, McLachlan HL, Forster D, Flood M. PMID: 23890679

OBJECTIVE: to explore the relationship between the degree to which labour is established on admission to hospital and method of birth...SETTING: a large tertiary-level maternity service in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking women with no previous caesarean section at low risk of complications in pregnancy were recruited to a randomised controlled trial. Trial participants whose management did not include a planned caesarean and who were admitted to hospital in spontaneous labour were included in this secondary analysis of trial data (n=1532)... RESULTS: ...Pooling the two randomised groups of nulliparous women, and after adjusting for randomised group, maternal age and maternal body mass index, early admission to hospital was strongly associated with caesarean section. Admission before the cervix was 5 cm dilated increased the odds 2.4-fold (95%CI 1.4, 4.0; p=0.001). Augmentation of labour and use of epidural analgesia were each strongly associated with caesarean section (adjusted odds ratios 3.10 (95%CI 2.1, 4.5) and 5.77 (95%CI 4.0, 8.4) respectively. CONCLUSION: these findings that women allocated to caseload care were admitted to hospital later in labour, and that earlier admission was strongly associated with birth by caesarean section, suggest that remaining at home somewhat longer in labour may be one of the mechanisms by which caseload care was effective in reducing caesarean section in the COSMOS trial.

J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2003 Mar-Apr;32(2):147-57; discussion 158-60.
Impact of collaborative management and early admission in labor on method of delivery.
Jackson DJ1, Lang JM, Ecker J, Swartz WH, Heeren T. PMID: 12685666

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of early admission in labor and perinatal care provider on delivery method. Higher spontaneous vaginal delivery rates for certified nurse midwives as compared with physicians have been reported in observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Certified nurse midwives, with their more expectant approach to labor management, would be expected to admit women later in labor than obstetricians. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 2,196 low-risk pregnancies, with singleton, vertex infants admitted in spontaneous labor. Independent and joint effects of perinatal care provider and cervical dilation at admission on delivery method were evaluated... RESULTS: Fewer (23.4%) women in collaborative care were admitted in early labor (< 4 cm cervical dilation) than women managed by obstetricians (95% CI = -27.6 to -19.2). Obstetrician care had 9% to 30% fewer spontaneous vaginal deliveries. Women admitted early in labor also had 6% to 34% fewer spontaneous vaginal deliveries. Evaluation of joint effects suggested that interaction between obstetrician provider and earlier admission increased the risk of operative delivery. CONCLUSION:
Later admission in labor (at 4 cm or greater cervical dilation) and management of perinatal care by certified nurse midwives in collaboration with obstetricians increased the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery in low-risk women.