Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate why lowrisk nulliparae were not willing to participate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of place of birth.Design Prospective study.Setting The Netherlands.Population All low-risk nulliparous women starting their pregnancy under midwife.Methods A questionnaire for 107 nulliparae who were willing to participate in a cohort study on place of birth, but at an earlier stage in their pregnancy declined to participate in a RCT of place of birth. This questionnaire included 12 items on a 4-point Likert scale but was not subjected to formal validation.Main outcome measure Reasons why nulliparae did not accept randomisation of place of birth. ResultsThe most important reason why women refused participation in the trial was that they had already chosen their place of birth before they were asked to participate at 12 weeks of pregnancy. From their answers, it became clear that pregnant women strongly value their autonomy of choice. The decision not to participate in the trial was not influenced by the information given by the midwife and the additional written information.Conclusions Factors that prevent randomisation for place of birth are difficult to influence. There is a need to explore why there is such certainty of view among women having their first child. Until we have an understanding of why women select information to make these choices and why women are reluctant to participate in trials that challenge choice, it may well be impossible to mount a trial of place of birth.

Parents and professionals will benefit from an intervention designed to improve SDM. A practical e-learning for all maternity care providers and e-health information for parents seems most appropriate. Key elements for the e-learning are raising awareness of the roles and responsibilities of parents and professionals, developing good communication skills and encouraging interprofessional collaboration. This requires a variety of educational strategies.

No abstract

The rate of operative deliveries was significantly lower for low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in a primary care setting compared with similar women who planned birth in secondary care. As with any retrospective analysis, it was not possible to eliminate bias, such as possible differences between primary and secondary care in assignment of risk status. In addition, known risk factors for interventions, technologies such as induction of labor and fetal monitoring, are only available in secondary care. These findings clearly demonstrate the need for a prospective study to examine the relationship between planned place of birth and mode of delivery and neonatal and maternal outcomes.