Search

Background: Evidence suggests that for low-risk pregnancies, planned home births attended by a skilled health professional in settings where such services are well integrated are associated with lower risk of intrapartum interventions and no increase in adverse health outcomes. Monitoring and updating evidence on the safety of planned home births is necessary to inform ongoing clinical and policy decisions., Methods: This protocol describes a population-based retrospective cohort study which aims to compare risk of (a) neonatal morbidity and mortality, and (b) maternal outcomes and birth interventions, between people at low obstetrical risk with a planned home birth with a midwife, a planned a hospital birth with a midwife, or a planned hospital birth with a physician. The study population will include Ontario residents who gave birth in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2021. We will use data collected prospectively in a provincial perinatal data registry. The primary outcome will be severe neonatal morbidity or mortality, a composite binary outcome that includes one or more of the following conditions: stillbirth during the intrapartum period, neonatal death (death of a liveborn infant in the first 28 completed days of life), five-minute Apgar score <4, or infant resuscitation requiring cardiac compressions. We will conduct a stratified analysis with three strata: nulliparous, parous-no previous caesarean birth, and parous-prior caesarean birth. To reduce the impact of selection bias in estimating the effect of planned place of birth on neonatal and maternal outcomes, we will use propensity score (PS) overlap weighting (OW) and modified Poisson regression to conduct multivariate analyses., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Darling et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The incidence of hospitalizations for acute respiratory infections (ARI) among young Indigenous children from Northern Canada is consistently high. ARIs requiring urgent air transfer can be life-threatening and costly. We aimed to describe their epidemiology, estimate age-specific incidences, and explore factors associated with level of care required., Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of children <5 years old from Northern Canada transferred by urgent air transport for ARI from 2005 through 2014 to 5 pediatric tertiary care centers in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal. Admissions were identified via ARI-related ICD-9/10 coding and forward sortation area. Descriptive statistics and univariable analyses were performed., Results: Among 650 urgent air transfers, the majority were from Nunavut (n = 349, 53.7%) or Nunavik (n = 166, 25.5%), <6 months old (n = 372, 57.2%), and without underlying comorbidity (n = 458; 70.5%). Estimated annual tertiary care ARI admission rates in infants <1 year old from Nunavut (40.7/1000) and Nunavik (44.5/1000) were tenfold higher than in children aged 1 to 4 years. Bronchiolitis (n = 333, 51.2%) and pneumonia (n = 208, 32.0%) were the most common primary discharge diagnoses. Nearly half required critical care (n = 316, 48.6%); mechanical ventilation rates ranged from 7.2% to 55.9% across centres. The most common primary pathogen was respiratory syncytial virus (n = 196, 30.1%). Influenza A or B was identified in 35 cases (5.4%) and vaccine-preventable bacterial infections in 27 (4.1%) cases., Interpretation: Urgent air transfers for ARI from Northern Canada are associated with high acuity. Variations in levels of care were seen across referral centers, age groups and pathogens., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: JP has received consulting/honoraria fees from AbbVie and Seegene, and research grant funding outside of the current work from AbbVie, Sanofi Pasteur and MedImmune. DMG has received research grant funding from BioMerieux. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.