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

Vanessa Scarf (), Habtamu Kasaye, Kate Levett and Emily Callander
Additional contact information
Vanessa Scarf: University of Technology Sydney
Habtamu Kasaye: University of Technology Sydney
Kate Levett: University of Technology Sydney
Emily Callander: University of Technology Sydney

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2025, vol. 23, issue 4, No 3, 568 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background To 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. Methods We 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. Findings From 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. Conclusions Most 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.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00957-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00957-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00957-w

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().