Search

Background: Adequate pain relief during childbirth is a very important issue for women and healthcare providers. This study investigates the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes of two analgesic methods during labor: water immersion and epidural analgesia. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study at a first-level hospital, in Spain, from 2009 to 2019, 1134 women, low-risk singleton and at term pregnancy, were selected. Among them, 567 women used water immersion; 567 women used epidural analgesia for pain control. Maternal outcomes included mode of birth and perineum condition. Neonatal outcomes included 5 min Apgar score, umbilical cord arterial pH, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions. Chi-square tests and Mann–Whitney U tests, together with their effect sizes (Cramer's V, odds ratio, and Cohen's d) were used to test the main hypotheses. Results: Spontaneous vaginal birth was almost 17 times more likely in the water immersion group (OR = 16.866 [6.540, 43.480], p < 0.001), whereas the odds of having a cesarean birth were almost 40 times higher in the epidural group (OR = 39.346 [3.610, 429.120], p < 0.001). The odds of having an intact perineum were more than two times higher for the water immersion group (OR = 2.606 [1.290, 5.250], p = 0.007), whereas having an episiotomy was more than eight times more likely for the epidural group (OR = 8.307 [2.800, 24.610], p < 0.001). Newborns in the water immersion group showed a better 5 min Apgar score and umbilical cord arterial pH and lower rates in admissions at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Conclusions: Women choosing water immersion as an analgesic method were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes and presented better results than women choosing epidural analgesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of hydrotherapy during childbirth has gained relevance due to the demand for natural childbirth and greater respect for the woman’s choice. Studies have shown benefits such as less use of epidural analgesia, increased ability to cope with pain, shorter labor, and a better overall birth experience. Objective: The main objective of this study was to generate further evidence on maternal and birth outcomes associated with the use of hydrotherapy during labor, specifically aiming to describe the effects of water immersion during all stages of labor (first, second, and third) on women. Methodology: A retrospective cohort study was carried out on a random sample of women who gave birth at the Costa del Sol Hospital between January 2010 and December 2020. The calculated sample size was 377 women and the data were extracted from their partograms. After data extraction, two groups were formed: one group used hydrotherapy during childbirth (n = 124), while the other group included women who did not use hydrotherapy during the childbirth process (n = 253). Results: The results highlight significant differences in pain perception, analgesia use, types of labor, and delivery times between the two groups. Women who did not use hydrotherapy reported higher pain perception, with a median (IQR) of 8 (7–9) on a numerical scale, compared to a median (IQR) of 6 (5–7) for the hydrotherapy group. Furthermore, the group without hydrotherapy required epidural analgesia in 40% of cases, while in the hydrotherapy group, it was only necessary in 20%. In terms of the type of delivery, the hydrotherapy group had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to the non-hydrotherapy group, which had more operative vaginal deliveries. The overall duration of labor was longer in the hydrotherapy group, especially in women who arrived at the hospital late in labor. Conclusions: Hydrotherapy is associated with a longer time to delivery. Women with a higher pain tolerance tend to opt for hydrotherapy instead of epidural analgesia.

Despite patient interest, there is little evidence regarding waterbirth. This review sought to compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in waterbirth, compared with landbirth. This search was conducted using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 15, 2021, with no language or geographic restrictions. Review was registered with PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42021288576. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of women with singleton cephalic gestations at ≥36 weeks comparing waterbirth to landbirth. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite outcome. Secondary outcomes included maternal and individual perinatal outcomes. Summary measures were reported as relative risk or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. I2 (Higgins I2) > 0% was used to identify heterogeneity. Six trials including 706 patients were included. When reported, all patients were ≥ 37 weeks' gestation. Labor augmentation (41.7 vs. 84.7%, p < 0.0001) and neuraxial anesthesia (10.5 vs. 72.4%, p < 0.0001) were less common with waterbirth. Estimated blood loss, postpartum hemorrhage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes did not differ between groups. Chorioamnionitis and endometritis were not reported by any trial. Maternal satisfaction was higher (p = 0.01) and pain scores lower (p = 0.003) with waterbirth. Length of first stage (p < 0.00001), third stage (p = 0.02), and labor (p = 0.04) were shorter with waterbirth. The composite perinatal outcome could not be calculated due to lack of individual patient data. Compared with landbirth, waterbirth was associated with lower rates of neuraxial anesthesia and lower pain scores, with improved maternal satisfaction. Key Points Data are limited regarding the safety and potential benefits of waterbirth. With waterbirth, maternal satisfaction was higher and pain scores lower. The first and third stages of labor and labor overall were shorter. No significant differences noted in other maternal outcomes, such as hemorrhage or laceration. Insufficient data are available regarding neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hydrotherapy, including the use of therapeutic showers and bathtubs, has been studied for its potential benefits in labor pain management. Previous research has indicated that hydrotherapy can alleviate pain, but comparative studies between therapeutic showers and bathtubs are scarce. Objective: This study aims to compare the effects of therapeutic showers and bathtubs on pain perception, labor duration, use of epidural analgesia, and maternal and neonatal outcomes during labor. Methods: A total of 124 pregnant women were included in this study. Participants were divided into two groups: those who used a therapeutic shower and those who used a bathtub during labor. Pain levels were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). Labor duration, use of epidural analgesia, types of delivery, maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, perineal status, maternal hypotension, fever, and breastfeeding), and neonatal outcomes (APGAR scores, fetal heart rate, complications, and neonatal unit admissions) were recorded and analyzed. Results: Both the therapeutic shower and the bathtub effectively reduced pain perception, with the bathtub showing a greater reduction in VAS scores. The therapeutic shower group experienced a significantly shorter labor duration compared to the bathtub group. The majority of participants in both groups did not require epidural analgesia, with no significant differences between the groups. There were no significant differences in the types of delivery. Maternal outcomes indicated a lower incidence of perineal tears and episiotomies in the therapeutic shower group. Neonatal outcomes, including APGAR scores and fetal heart rate, were similar between the groups, with no significant differences in complications or neonatal unit admissions. Conclusions: Both therapeutic showers and bathtubs are effective for pain relief during labor, with the bathtub showing a higher reduction in pain intensity. The therapeutic shower is associated with a shorter labor duration and a lower incidence of perineal tears and episiotomies. Both methods are safe for neonatal well-being, making hydrotherapy a viable non-pharmacological option for pain management in labor. However, the therapeutic shower may offer additional benefits in terms of labor duration and maternal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Design Setting Sample Methods Main outcome measures Results Conclusion Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth.Cohort study with non‐inferiority design.Twenty‐six UK NHS maternity services.A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth.Non‐inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems.Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth.Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one‐sided 95% CI, −∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.79).Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: the benefits of water are significant during the birth process. Improved maternal experience of labor, less use of epidurals, better pain management, shorter labor, and a greater sense of control are observed during the birth process. Objective: This report aims to determine the benefits of hydrotherapy in clinical childbirth approaches and its applicability in pain control. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials selected from various databases with no publication date limits was conducted, comparing groups that did not use hydrotherapy with groups that did during labor. Results: Seven articles met the inclusion criteria, with five articles using hot water immersion and two using hot water shower as hydrotherapy treatments. This study identified 840 participants, with the intervention groups including 417 term pregnant women and the control groups including 423 pregnant women. The effect size of hydrotherapy on pain was calculated using the visual analog scale in five articles and analgesic use in the other two articles. Hydrotherapy significantly reduced pain during labor with a mean difference of −0.97 (95% CI: −1.91 to −0.03; I2 = 97.32%, p < 0.001). The duration of the first stage of labor was not significantly affected, with a mean difference of −0.17 h (95% CI: −0.55 to 0.21; I2 = 56.75%, p = 0.059). Additionally, hydrotherapy did not significantly impact the newborns' Apgar scores at 5 min, with a mean difference of 0.18 (95% CI: −0.48 to 0.85; I2 = 2.15%, p = 0.939). Conclusions: Hydrotherapy is beneficial for pain control in the first stage of labor and does not increase its duration or negatively affect the Apgar score of newborns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To consolidate healthcare professionals' insights about waterbirths and water immersion during labour. Design: Mixed studies review. Data Sources: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception dates till June 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Pluye and Hong's mixed studies review framework guided this review. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using the convergent qualitative synthesis method, and results were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework. Results: Three main themes were identified from the 22 included studies: (1) believing in waterbirths, (2) opposing forces and (3) plotting the course ahead. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals reported different views about waterbirths and water immersion practices; midwives were most likely to support these practices, followed by nurses and lastly, few physicians supported them. Reasons for opposing waterbirths include insufficient training and support from colleagues as well as concerns about work efficiency, waterbirth safety and litigation issues. Impact: The available evidence suggests the need to provide waterbirth training for healthcare professionals, equip healthcare facilities with necessary waterbirth‐related infrastructure and develop appropriate waterbirth policies/guidelines. Healthcare professionals could also consider providing antenatal waterbirth education to women and obtain women's feedback to improve current policies/guidelines. Future research should explore the views of different types of healthcare professionals from more diverse cultures. Reporting Method: The PRISMA guidelines. No Patient or Public Contribution: Systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of hydrotherapy during childbirth has gained relevance due to the demand for natural childbirth and greater respect for the woman's choice. Studies have shown benefits such as less use of epidural analgesia, increased ability to cope with pain, shorter labor, and a better overall birth experience. Objective: The main objective of this study was to generate further evidence on maternal and birth outcomes associated with the use of hydrotherapy during labor, specifically aiming to describe the effects of water immersion during all stages of labor (first, second, and third) on women. Methodology: A retrospective cohort study was carried out on a random sample of women who gave birth at the Costa del Sol Hospital between January 2010 and December 2020. The calculated sample size was 377 women and the data were extracted from their partograms. After data extraction, two groups were formed: one group used hydrotherapy during childbirth (n = 124), while the other group included women who did not use hydrotherapy during the childbirth process (n = 253). Results: The results highlight significant differences in pain perception, analgesia use, types of labor, and delivery times between the two groups. Women who did not use hydrotherapy reported higher pain perception, with a median (IQR) of 8 (7–9) on a numerical scale, compared to a median (IQR) of 6 (5–7) for the hydrotherapy group. Furthermore, the group without hydrotherapy required epidural analgesia in 40% of cases, while in the hydrotherapy group, it was only necessary in 20%. In terms of the type of delivery, the hydrotherapy group had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to the non-hydrotherapy group, which had more operative vaginal deliveries. The overall duration of labor was longer in the hydrotherapy group, especially in women who arrived at the hospital late in labor. Conclusions: Hydrotherapy is associated with a longer time to delivery. Women with a higher pain tolerance tend to opt for hydrotherapy instead of epidural analgesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden. METHODS A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis. RESULTS The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines. CONCLUSIONS The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adequate pain relief during childbirth is a very important issue for women and healthcare providers. This study investigates the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes of two analgesic methods during labor: water immersion and epidural analgesia. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study at a first-level hospital, in Spain, from 2009 to 2019, 1134 women, low-risk singleton and at term pregnancy, were selected. Among them, 567 women used water immersion; 567 women used epidural analgesia for pain control. Maternal outcomes included mode of birth and perineum condition. Neonatal outcomes included 5 min Apgar score, umbilical cord arterial pH, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions. Chi-square tests and Mann–Whitney U tests, together with their effect sizes (Cramer’s V, odds ratio, and Cohen’s d) were used to test the main hypotheses. Results: Spontaneous vaginal birth was almost 17 times more likely in the water immersion group (OR = 16.866 [6.540, 43.480], p < 0.001), whereas the odds of having a cesarean birth were almost 40 times higher in the epidural group (OR = 39.346 [3.610, 429.120], p < 0.001). The odds of having an intact perineum were more than two times higher for the water immersion group (OR = 2.606 [1.290, 5.250], p = 0.007), whereas having an episiotomy was more than eight times more likely for the epidural group (OR = 8.307 [2.800, 24.610], p < 0.001). Newborns in the water immersion group showed a better 5 min Apgar score and umbilical cord arterial pH and lower rates in admissions at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Conclusions: Women choosing water immersion as an analgesic method were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes and presented better results than women choosing epidural analgesia.

Abstract Background The increasing demand for childbirth care based on physiological principles has led official bodies to encourage health centers to provide evidence-based care aimed at promoting women’s participation in informed decision-making and avoiding excessive medical intervention during childbirth. One of the goals is to reduce pain and find alternative measures to epidural anesthesia to enhance women’s autonomy and well-being during childbirth. Currently, water immersion is used as a non-pharmacological method for pain relief. This review aimed to identify and synthesize evidence on women’s and midwives’ experiences, values, and preferences regarding water immersion during childbirth. Methods A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence were conducted. Databases were searched and references were checked according to specific criteria. Studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods to examine the opinions of women or midwives in the hospital setting were included. Non-qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies that did not separately report qualitative results, and studies in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Research Checklist was used to assess study quality, and results were synthesized using thematic synthesis. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The qualitative studies yielded three key themes: 1) reasons identified by women and midwives for choosing a water birth, 2) benefits experienced in water births, and 3) barriers and facilitators of water immersion during childbirth. Conclusions The evidence from qualitative studies indicates that women report benefits associated with water birth. From the perspective of midwives, ensuring safe water births requires adequate resources, midwives training, and rigorous standardized protocols to ensure that all pregnant women can safely opt for water immersion during childbirth with satisfactory results.

Background Using routinely collected clinical data for observational research is an increasingly important method for data collection, especially when rare outcomes are being explored. The POOL study was commissioned to evaluate the safety of waterbirth in the UK using routine maternity and neonatal clinical data. This paper describes the design, rationale, set-up and pilot for this data linkage study using bespoke methods. Methods Clinical maternity information systems hold many data items of value for research purposes, but often lack specific data items required for individual studies. This study used the novel method of amending an existing clinical maternity database for the purpose of collecting additional research data fields. In combination with the extraction of existing data fields, this maximised the potential use of existing routinely collected clinical data for research purposes, whilst reducing NHS staff data collection burden. Wellbeing Software® provider of the Euroking® Maternity Information System, added new study specific data fields to their information system, extracted data from participating NHS sites and transferred data for matching with the National Neonatal Research Database to ascertain outcomes for babies admitted to neonatal units. Study set-up processes were put in place for all sites. The data extraction, linkage and cleaning processes were piloted with one pre-selected NHS site. Results Twenty-six NHS sites were set-up over 27 months (January 2019 - April 2021). Twenty-four thousand maternity records were extracted from the one NHS site, pertaining to the period January 2015 to March 2019. Data field completeness for maternal and neonatal primary outcomes were mostly acceptable. Neonatal identifiers flowed to the National Neonatal Research Database for successful matching and linkage between maternity and neonatal unit records. Discussion Piloting the data extraction and linkage highlighted the need for additional governance arrangements, training at NHS sites and new processes for the study team to ensure data quality and confidentiality are upheld during the study. Amending existing NHS electronic information systems and accessing clinical data at scale, is possible, but continues to be a time consuming and a technically challenging exercise.

Background: The increasing demand for childbirth care based on physiological principles has led official bodies to encourage health centers to provide evidence-based care aimed at promoting women's participation in informed decision-making and avoiding excessive medical intervention during childbirth. One of the goals is to reduce pain and find alternative measures to epidural anesthesia to enhance women's autonomy and well-being during childbirth. Currently, water immersion is used as a non-pharmacological method for pain relief. This review aimed to identify and synthesize evidence on women's and midwives' experiences, values, and preferences regarding water immersion during childbirth. Methods: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence were conducted. Databases were searched and references were checked according to specific criteria. Studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods to examine the opinions of women or midwives in the hospital setting were included. Non-qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies that did not separately report qualitative results, and studies in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Research Checklist was used to assess study quality, and results were synthesized using thematic synthesis. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The qualitative studies yielded three key themes: 1) reasons identified by women and midwives for choosing a water birth, 2) benefits experienced in water births, and 3) barriers and facilitators of water immersion during childbirth. Conclusions: The evidence from qualitative studies indicates that women report benefits associated with water birth. From the perspective of midwives, ensuring safe water births requires adequate resources, midwives training, and rigorous standardized protocols to ensure that all pregnant women can safely opt for water immersion during childbirth with satisfactory results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maternal preference for warm water immersion (WWI) and waterbirth is increasing, but adoption into obstetric guidelines and clinical practice remains limited. Concerns regarding safety and a paucity of evidence have been cited as reasons for the limited adoption and uptake. Aim: The aim was to investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes after WWI and/or waterbirth compared with land birth. Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in an Australian public maternity hospital between 2019 and 2020. Maternal and neonatal outcomes for 1665 women who had a vaginal birth were studied. Primary outcome was admission to the neonatal unit (NNU). Secondary outcomes included neonatal antibiotic administration, maternal intrapartum fever, epidural use and perineal injury. Multivariate logistical regression analyses compared the outcomes between three groups: waterbirth, WWI only and land birth. Results: NNU admissions for a suspected infectious condition were significantly higher in the land birth group (P = 0.035). After accounting for labour duration, epidural use and previous birth mode, no significant difference was detected between groups in the odds of NNU admission (P = 0.167). No babies were admitted to NNU with water inhalation or drowning. Women birthing on land were more likely to be febrile (2 vs 0%; P = 0.007); obstetric anal sphincter injury and postpartum haemorrhage were similar between groups. Regional analgesia use was significantly lower in the WWI group compared to the land birth group (21.02 vs 38.58%; P = <0.001). There was one cord avulsion in the waterbirth group (0.41%). Conclusion: Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups, with no increased risk evident in the waterbirth and WWI groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention‐to‐treat analysis, and per‐protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage. Results: 1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention‐to‐treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per‐protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage. Conclusions: A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention‐to‐treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Our aim was to compare the outcomes of waterbirths and conventional births in a Finnish hospital setting for the first time. Methods: This retrospective study compared waterbirths with conventional low‐risk deliveries from September 2018 to March 2021 at a level‐two hospital in Finland. Cases and controls were collected from the patient records database. Results: The study comprised 78 waterbirths and 1623 matched conventional births. Mothers in the waterbirth group only required a quarter of the amount of pain medication required by those in the control group. Babies born in water had slightly lower birth temperatures than those born conventionally (36.6 versus 36.8°C). Umbilical cord artery and vein pH were slightly higher in the waterbirth group than in the control group (artery 7.31 versus 7.28 and vein 7.38 versus 7.35). The Apgar scores did not differ. Hospital stays were shorter in the waterbirth group than in the conventional birth group (1.90 versus 2.33 days). Babies in the waterbirth group were significantly less likely to require formula than those in the conventional birth group during their hospital stay. Conclusion: Waterbirth decreased the requirement for maternal pain medication and favoured greater breastfeeding and earlier discharge. Prospective studies must confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is insufficient high-quality evidence to either support or discourage water birth (WB).Objectives: To examine different maternal complications of WB compared to standard land birth (LB). The primary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage and genital trauma. The secondary outcome included the risk of retained placenta and shoulder dystocia.Methods: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO. In addition, we searched in Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between WB and obstetric outcomes. This systematic review (SR) was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analyses were performed using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software (http://www.cochrane.org).Results: This systematic review included 22 studies (20 observational studies and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed lower risk of major PPH compared to the LB group (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.89), no significant difference (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.50-1.78) in the incidence of minor PPH (500-1000 mL blood loss) between WB and LB, no significant difference in the rate of third- and fourth-degree lacerations (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07) and in the incidence of retained placenta (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.50-3,35), fewer shoulder dystocia for WB (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.35-0.50). However, compared with the LB group, the rate of first-second-degree tears in the WB group increased by 45% (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16-1.81).Conclusion: We support ACOG guidelines recommendation for further RCT to assess the impact of water immersion during delivery on maternal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION Recent research highlights that women experience great benefits from immersing in warm water during labor and birth. While there has been an increase in research examining women's experiences of using water, there has been little investigation of the views and perceptions of women who have not. The objective of this study was to examine the views and perceptions of water immersion from women who had birthed in Australia but had not used the option. METHODS An e-survey was distributed to women using purposive and snowball sampling methods between November 2016 and October 2017. Email, text, social media, and parenting forums maximized recruitment. A total of 395 women who had not used water immersion for labor or birth participated. RESULTS Three quarters of all women surveyed suggested that they would have considered using the option of water immersion if it was offered to them. Nearly 20% of all women did not know it was an option and, therefore, were only made aware of it as a result of completing this survey. Women indicated that they most often learned about water immersion from a midwife. When asked to rate the benefits and concerns, the majority held very little concern and generally agreed that water immersion would probably provide the associated benefits that are commonly cited in the literature. CONCLUSIONS Water immersion offers women many benefits although may not always be discussed antenatally. In light of these results, water immersion could be included in the discussions about labor and birth options antenatally and better supported during labor and birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We aimed to compare myeloperoxidase levels in cord blood samples of mothers undergoing water immersion or conventional labor.Method: We enrolled 52 pregnant women to this case control study meeting the following criteria: uneventful gestational follow-ups, no history of known chronic or pregnancy-associated diseases, cesarean section or uterine operation, BMI <29.9 kg/m2, single vertex presentation, normal fetal heart rate pattern, 37-41 weeks of gestation, estimated fetal weight of 2500-4000 g. The subjects were either undergoing immersion in water (n = 26) or conventional labor (n = 26) and their myeloperoxidase levels were measured from cord blood samples.Results: The mean age of the study population was 24.55 ± 4.9 years. The mean BMI and weight gain during pregnancy were 26.8 ± 2.7 kg/m2 and 11.6 ± 5.3 kg, respectively. The mean age of gestation at birth was 39.6 ± 1.1 weeks, with a mean birth weight of 3205.5 ± 433.2 g. The subjects in water immersion and conventional labor groups showed no difference in terms of age, gestational age, BMI, and birth weight. The mean myeloperoxidase level was significantly lower in the water immersion group (759.8 ± 391.5 U/L) compared to that in the conventional labor group (1832.2 ± 1011.9 U/L, p = 0.004).Discussion: Immersion in water during the first stage of labor seems to be associated with low myeloperoxidase levels, suggesting reduced oxidative stress in this delivery method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth. Design: Retrospective cohort study, with propensity score matching to address confounding. Setting: Community births, United States. Sample: Medical records‐based registry data from low‐risk births were used to create waterbirth and land birth groups (n = 17 530 each), propensity score‐matched on >80 demographic and pregnancy risk covariables. Methods: Logistic regression models compared outcomes between the matched waterbirth and land birth groups. Main outcome measures: Maternal: immediate postpartum transfer to a hospital, any genital tract trauma, severe (3rd/4th degree) trauma, haemorrhage >1000 mL, diagnosed haemorrhage regardless of estimated blood loss, uterine infection, uterine infection requiring hospitalisation, any hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks. Neonatal: umbilical cord avulsion; immediate neonatal transfer to a hospital; respiratory distress syndrome; any hospitalisation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, or neonatal infection in the first 6 weeks; and neonatal death. Results: Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31–1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05–1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37–1.82). Our results are concordant with other studies: waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH. New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Waterbirth is widely available in English maternity settings for women who are not at increased risk of complications during labour. Immersion in water during labour is associated with a number of maternal benefits. However for birth in water the situation is less clear, with conclusive evidence on safety lacking and little known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. This retrospective cohort study uses electronic data routinely collected in the course of maternity care in England in 2015–16 to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water. Methods Data were obtained from three population level electronic datasets linked together for the purposes of a national audit of maternity care. The study cohort included women who had no risk factors requiring them to give birth in an obstetric unit according to national guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal (postpartum haemorrhage of 1500mls or more, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)) and neonatal (Apgar score less than 7, neonatal unit admission) outcomes associated with waterbirth. Results 46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England were included in the analysis cohort. Of these 6264 (13.6%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40 (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for age group 35–39 1.27, 95% confidence interval (1.15,1.41)) and less common in women under 25 (adjOR 18–24 0.76 (0.70, 0.82)), those of higher parity (parity ≥3 adjOR 0.56 (0.47,0.66)) or who were obese (BMI 30–34.9 adjOR 0.77 (0.70,0.85)). Waterbirth was also less likely in black (adjOR 0.42 (0.36, 0.51)) and Asian (adjOR 0.26 (0.23,0.30)) women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation (most affluent versus least affluent areas adjOR 0.47 (0.43, 0.52)). There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.95 (0.66,1.36)) or incidence of OASI (adjOR 1.00 (0.86,1.16)). There was an association between waterbirth and reduced incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (adjOR 0.68 (0.51,0.90)) and neonatal unit admission (adjOR 0.65 (0.53,0.78)). Conclusions In this large observational cohort study, there was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby. There was evidence that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water. Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth.

Introduction: Research to understand factors associated with normal physiologic birth (unassisted vaginal birth, spontaneous labor onset without epidural analgesia, spinal, or general anesthetic, without episiotomy) is required. Laboring and/or giving birth in water has been shown to be associated with a high proportion of physiologic birth but with little understanding of factors that may influence this outcome. This study explored factors associated with normal physiologic birth for women who labored in water. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a UK‐based prospective observational study of 8064 women at low risk of childbirth complications who labored in water. Consecutive women were recruited from birth settings in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Planned place of birth, maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were measured. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression modelling explored factors associated with normal physiologic birth. Results: In total, 5758 (71.4%) of women who labored in water had a normal physiologic birth. Planned birth in the community (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 2.22‐2.99) or at an alongside midwifery unit (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04‐1.41) was positively associated with normal physiologic birth compared with planned birth in an obstetric unit. Duration of second stage (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62‐0.70), duration in the pool [aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90‐0.96), and birth weight of the neonate (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65‐0.85) were negatively associated with normal physiologic birth. Parity was not associated with normal physiologic birth in multivariate analyses. Discussion: Our findings largely reflected wider research, both in and out of water. We found midwifery‐led birth settings may increase the likelihood of normal physiologic birth among healthy women who labor in water, irrespective of parity. This association supports growing evidence demonstrating the importance of planned place of birth on reducing intervention rates and adds to research on labor and birth in water. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women’s experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women’s experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia. Methods The Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5 years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor. Results In total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC. Conclusion This study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC.

Problem/background: Immersion in water has known benefits, such as reducing pain and shortening the duration of labour. The relationship between waterbirth and perineal injury remains unclear., Aim: To compare the incidence of perineal injury in waterbirth and birth on land among low-risk women. Secondary outcomes were postpartum haemorrhage and 5-minute Apgar scores <7., Methods: Prospective cohort study of 2875 low-risk women who planned a home birth in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in 2008-2013 and had a spontaneous vaginal birth without intervention. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed., Findings: A total of 942 women had a waterbirth, and 1933 gave birth on land. The groups differed in their various background variables. Multiparous women had moderately lower rates of intact perineum (59.3% vs. 63.9%) and primiparous women had lower rates of episiotomies (1.1% vs. 4.8%) in waterbirth than in birth on land. No statistically significant differences were detected in adjusted regression analysis on intact perineum in waterbirth (primiparous women's aOR = 1.03, CI 0.68-1.58; multiparous women's aOR = 0.84, CI 0.67-1.05). The rates of sphincter injuries (0.9% vs. 0.6%) were low in both groups. No significant differences were detected in secondary outcomes., Discussion: The decreased incidence of intact perineum among multiparous women was modest and inconclusive, and the prevalence of sphincter injury was low., Conclusion: Low-risk women contemplating waterbirth should be advised to weigh the risks and benefits detected in this study against previously established benefits of waterbirth and should make an informed choice based on their values., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Waterbirth is associated with a less painful childbirth, enhanced couples' intimacy, and positive feelings toward women's bodies and sexuality. In a qualitative, descriptive case study involving 21 participants, we examined the sexual experiences—during childbirth and postpartum—of women who had a waterbirth in a hospital environment. Women discussed their sexuality in the intrapartum and postpartum period after having a waterbirth in public or private hospitals. Two main themes were developed from the data analysis: 'women's sexual pleasure during waterbirth' and 'sexuality after childbirth'. Experiences included transcendence during waterbirth, a feeling that it represented a unique experience, and couples' more positive feelings about intimacy. The shared representations of women suggest that waterbirth can be a calming, joyful event for couples. During this process, they felt that it was a loving, shared event. In addition, after childbirth women experienced positive feelings toward their bodies and sexuality (including orgasm), as well as closer intimacy with their partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aim: Water immersion and epidural analgesia are the most preferred pain relief methods during the labor process. Adverse effects related to these methods, impact on the labor, and perception of pain is well studied in the literature. We aimed to investigate the cord blood level of copeptin, total serum oxidant (TOS), antioxidant (TAS), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and oxytocin after the labor with water immersion, epidural analgesia, and vaginal birth without pain relief. Materials and methods: The study was conducted with 102 healthy pregnant women admitted to the obstetric delivery unit for noncomplicated term birth. Copeptin, oxytocin, TAS, TOS, IL-1, and IL-6 levels of cord blood and obstetric and neonatal results after vaginal birth were compared. Results: The study included a total of 102 patients (group 1 = 30, group 2 = 30, and group 3 = 42). We found no significant difference between the three groups in terms of BMI, age, gravidity, parity, birth week, birth weight, interventional birth, perineal trauma, breastfeeding, duration of labor, oxytocin, IL-1 and IL-6 levels (p > 0.05). Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) need, TAS, TOS, and copeptin levels were higher. Apgar scores were lower in the epidural group (p = 0.011, p = 0.036, p = 0.027, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001 respectively). Conclusion: Epidural analgesia has deteriorated oxidative stress status and lower neonatal Apgar scores with higher NICU administration compared with water birth and vaginal birth without pain relief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Waterbirth is widely available in English maternity settings for women who are not at increased risk of complications during labour. Immersion in water during labour is associated with a number of maternal benefits. However for birth in water the situation is less clear, with conclusive evidence on safety lacking and little known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. This retrospective cohort study uses electronic data routinely collected in the course of maternity care in England in 2015-16 to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water.Methods: Data were obtained from three population level electronic datasets linked together for the purposes of a national audit of maternity care. The study cohort included women who had no risk factors requiring them to give birth in an obstetric unit according to national guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal (postpartum haemorrhage of 1500mls or more, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)) and neonatal (Apgar score less than 7, neonatal unit admission) outcomes associated with waterbirth.Results: 46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England were included in the analysis cohort. Of these 6264 (13.6%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40 (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for age group 35-39 1.27, 95% confidence interval (1.15,1.41)) and less common in women under 25 (adjOR 18-24 0.76 (0.70, 0.82)), those of higher parity (parity ≥3 adjOR 0.56 (0.47,0.66)) or who were obese (BMI 30-34.9 adjOR 0.77 (0.70,0.85)). Waterbirth was also less likely in black (adjOR 0.42 (0.36, 0.51)) and Asian (adjOR 0.26 (0.23,0.30)) women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation (most affluent versus least affluent areas adjOR 0.47 (0.43, 0.52)). There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.95 (0.66,1.36)) or incidence of OASI (adjOR 1.00 (0.86,1.16)). There was an association between waterbirth and reduced incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (adjOR 0.68 (0.51,0.90)) and neonatal unit admission (adjOR 0.65 (0.53,0.78)).Conclusions: In this large observational cohort study, there was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby. There was evidence that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water. Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine the incidence of and predictors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and intact perineum in women giving birth in the water and compare with the general obstetric population. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected for women who had singleton cephalic presentation vaginal births in the water and the general obstetric population between August 2007 and December 2017. Results: We identified 1,007 women who had a waterbirth and 36,924 women from the general obstetric population. There was no significant difference in the incidence of OASIS between waterbirths and the general obstetric population (2.3% vs. 2.0%). Having a waterbirth was associated with a lower probability for an intact perineum (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.73–0.94) when compared with the general obstetric population (44.7% vs. 51.3%). Nulliparous women with a waterbirth when compared with multiparous women had an eightfold higher likelihood for the occurrence of OASIS (OR = 8.28; 95% CI: 2.64–25.86). The risk for a higher degree of OASIS was associated with increased maternal age in the total sample (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.06–1.11) and with a lower body mass index (BMI) at booking in multiparous women (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92–0.99). The risk for any type of perineal trauma was associated with increased maternal age in the total sample (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.07–1.13) and with a lower BMI at booking in multiparous women (OR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.91–0.99). Conclusions: We found that giving birth in the water reduced the chance of having an intact perineum. We have also shown that nulliparity, increased maternal age in all women, and a lower BMI at booking in multiparous were associated with OASIS and lower rates of intact perineum in waterbirths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of waterbirth is increasing worldwide and has been a feature of maternity services in the United Kingdom for over twenty years. The body of literature surrounding the practice focusses on maternal and neonatal outcomes comparing birth in and out of water. To undertake a review of qualitative studies exploring women's experiences of waterbirth. This understanding is pertinent when supporting women who birth in water. A literature search was conducted in databases British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Maternity and Infant Care, Medline, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Web of Science, using search terms waterbirth, labour/labor, childbirth, women, mothers, experience, perception and maternity care. Five primary research articles published between 2003 and 2018 which explored the views of women who had birthed in water were selected for inclusion. Using meta-ethnography, qualitative research studies were analysed and synthesised using the method of 'reciprocal translational analysis' identifying themes relating to women's experiences of birthing in water. Four themes were identified: women's knowledge of waterbirth; women's perception of physiological birth; water, autonomy and control; and waterbirth: easing the transition. Despite the paucity of qualitative studies exploring women's experiences of waterbirth, meta-synthesis of those that do exist suggested women identify positively with the choice. The experience of birthing in water appears to enhance a woman's sense of autonomy and control during childbirth suggesting waterbirth can be an empowering experience for women who choose it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There is limited research examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. Our aim was to address this gap in evidence and build knowledge around this important topic. Methods This mixed method study was performed in two phases, between August and December 2016, in the birth centre of a tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Phase one utilised a cross sectional design to examine perceptions of education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth through a questionnaire. Phase two employed a qualitative descriptive design and focus groups to explore what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who labour or birth in water and the challenges midwives experienced with waterbirth. Frequency distributions were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from focus group transcripts. Results The majority (85%; 29 of 34) of midwives surveyed returned a questionnaire. Results from phase one confirmed that following training, 93% (27 of 29) of midwives felt equipped to facilitate waterbirth and the mean waterbirths required to facilitate confidence was seven. Midwives were confident caring for women in water during the first, second and third stage of labour and enjoyed facilitating water immersion for labour and birth. Finally, responses to labour and birth scenarios indicated midwives were practicing according to state-wide clinical guidance. Phase two included two focus groups of seven and five midwives. Exploration of what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who used water immersion revealed three themes: instinctive birthing; woman-centred atmosphere; and undisturbed space. Exploration of the challenges experienced with waterbirth revealed two themes: learning through reflection and facilities required to support waterbirth. Conclusions This research contributes to the growing knowledge base examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. It also highlights the importance of exploring what immersion in water for labour and birth offers midwives, as this research suggests they are integral to sustaining waterbirth as an option for low risk women.

Abstract Background There is a gap in knowledge and understanding relating to the experiences of women exposed to the opportunity of waterbirth. Our aim was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women who achieved or did not achieve their planned waterbirth. Methods An exploratory design using critical incident techniques was conducted between December 2015 and July 2016, in the birth centre of the tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Women were telephoned 6 weeks post birth. Demographic data included: age; education; parity; and previous birth mode. Women were also asked the following: what made you choose to plan a waterbirth?; what do you think contributed to you having (or not having) a waterbirth?; and which three words would you use to describe your birth experience? Frequency distributions and univariate comparisons were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from the interviews. Results A total of 31% (93 of 296) of women achieved a waterbirth and 69% (203 of 296) did not. Multiparous women were more likely to achieve a waterbirth (57% vs 32%; p

Background: Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women's experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women's experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia.Methods: The Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5 years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor.Results: In total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC.Conclusion: This study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore retrospective descriptions about benefits, negative experiences and preparatory information related to waterbirths. Design: A qualitative study. Methods: Women who gave birth in water with healthy pregnancies and low‐risk births were consecutively recruited between December 2015–October 2018 from two birthing units in Sweden. All who gave birth in water during the recruitment period were included (N = 155) and 111 responded to the survey. Women were emailed a web‐based survey six weeks postpartum. Open‐ended questions were analysed with qualitative content analysis. Results: Two themes were identified related to benefits: (a) physical benefits: the water eases labour progression while offering buoyancy and pain relief; and (b) psychological benefits: improved relaxation and control in a demedicalized and safe setting. Two themes were identified related to negative experiences: (a) equipment‐related issues due to the construction of the tub and issues related to being immersed in water; and (b) fears and worries related to waterbirth. In regard to preparatory information, respondents reported a lack of general and specific information related to waterbirths, even after they contacted birthing units to ask questions. Supplemental web‐based information was sought, but the trustworthiness of these sources was questioned and a need for trustworthy web‐based information was articulated. Conclusion: Women who give birth in water experience physical and psychological benefits, but need better equipment and sufficient information. There is room for improvement with regard to prenatal and intrapartum care of women who give birth in water. Impact: Judging from women's recounts, midwives and nurses should continue advocating waterbirth in low‐risk pregnancies. The lack of adequate equipment in Swedish birthing units articulated by women challenge current routines and resources. The findings illustrate unfulfilled needs for preparatory information about waterbirth, further strengthening that midwives should discuss the possibility of waterbirth when meeting expectant parents in the antenatal setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: Obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) during childbirth is associated with urino-genital pain and dysfunction. Waterbirth is a popular birth choice for women, but controversy remains around the risk of OASI during waterbirth. This study reports on the incidence of OASI, and factors associated with OASI, for a cohort of women who gave birth in water. Methods: This secondary analysis used prospectively collected data from 2,908 women who gave birth in water in a hospital setting. The incidence of OASI was calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis evaluated factors associated with OASI. Results: The incidence of OASI was 1.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4, 2.4) for all women. In nulliparae it was higher (3.2%, 95% CI 2.3, 4.3) than in multiparae (0.9%, 95% CI 0.5, 1.4). In the multivariable analysis, two variables were associated with OASI; multiparity was negatively associated with OASI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.24, 95% CI 0.12, 0.50, p < 0.001), and birth weight was positively associated with OASI (aOR 1.001, 95% CI 1.000, 1.002, p = 0.02). A "hands-on" technique was used during only 13% of births. A birth position supporting a flexible sacrum did not influence OASI risk. Conclusions: A low incidence of OASI was found for this cohort of women. The low proportion of midwives using a hands-on technique suggests that it may not be required in waterbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Water immersion during labor is an effective comfort measure; however, outcomes for waterbirth in the hospital setting have not been well documented. Our objective was to report the outcomes from two nurse‐midwifery services that provide waterbirth within a tertiary care hospital setting in the United States. Methods: This study is a retrospective, observational, matched comparison design. Data were collected from two large midwifery practices in tertiary care centers using information recorded at the time of birth for quality assurance purposes. Land birth cases were excluded if events would have precluded them from waterbirth (epidural, meconium stained fluid, chorioamnionitis, estimated gestational age < 37 weeks, or body mass index > 40). Neonatal outcomes included Apgar score and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Maternal outcomes included perineal lacerations and postpartum hemorrhage. Results: A total of 397 waterbirths and 2025 land births were included in the analysis. There were no differences in outcomes between waterbirth and land birth for Apgar scores or neonatal intensive care admissions (1.8% vs 2.5%). Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to sustain a first‐ or second‐degree laceration. Postpartum hemorrhage rates were similar for both groups. Similar results were obtained using a land birth subset matched on insurance, hospital location, and parity using propensity scores. Discussion: In this study, waterbirth was not associated with increased risk to neonates, extensive perineal lacerations, or postpartum hemorrhage. Fewer women in the waterbirth group sustained first‐ or second‐degree lacerations requiring sutures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For women with low risk births, waterbirth is an alternative that is requested and provided in approximately a hundred countries. However, in some countries, including Sweden, waterbirth is not generally available. To explore the experiences, knowledge and attitudes regarding waterbirth among midwives, obstetricians/gynaecologists and neonatologists. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Sweden, using a web-based survey distributed via The Swedish Association of Midwives and the Heads of department of all Swedish maternity wards between April and June 2016. The respondents (n = 1609) answered a combination of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. The responses were analysed with descriptive statistics and quantitative content analyses. Both midwives and physicians stated a lack of experience, knowledge and clinical guidelines related to attending and assisting waterbirths. Overall, midwives had more positive attitudes to waterbirth (38.8% vs 4.5%) as well as towards providing and implementing waterbirth, compared to physicians (71.0% vs 14.9%). Midwives stated significantly more benefits and fewer risks for women and babies, compared to physicians who requested more evidence. Opinions regarding waterbirth are to some extent based on attitudes rather than actual experience and knowledge. There are diverse interpretations of the strength of evidence and a lack of updating in the research field of waterbirth. As waterbirth is requested by women, health professionals need to update their knowledge in this topic in order to give coherent and evidence-based information and care to prospective parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse‐midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6‐week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi‐square) with a significance level of P <.05. Results: Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P =.03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P =.045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups. Discussion: The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low‐risk women and their neonates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A concept analysis helps to define what a concept is and is not. • Immersing in water during labour and birth facilitates a sense of coherence. • Women experience warm water immersion as both positive and satisfying. To explore the concept of sense of coherence as facilitated by water immersion during labour and/or birth. A concept analysis and synthesis. A literature search of CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO and Emcare was undertaken in February 2022. Results were cross-checked with Google Scholar. No timeframe was specified, and results were restricted to research papers written in English. Overall, 2768 papers were retrieved and after removal of duplicates and unrelated papers, abstracts were screened to ensure the paper met the inclusion criteria i.e. women's experiences of water immersion for labour and/or birth. This process yielded a total of 37 articles and two theses, these were used for the concept analysis. Attributes were described and an exemplar case developed after mapping and charting of the data set. Three attributes were identified; agency, holistic and complete and more than pain relief which align with the three sense of coherence components: comprehensible, meaningfulness and manageability. There is a growing evidence base regarding the use of intrapartum water immersion. The literature exploring women's experiences and views of water immersion, appears to consistently report that women experience physiological, physical and psychological benefits and that these benefits complement each other to facilitate greater self-efficacy and a more holistic experience. This combination of benefits afforded by water immersion facilitates a sense of coherence and subsequently, increases the likelihood of the woman experiencing labour and birth as both positive and satisfying. A greater understanding of women's experiences of water immersion will provide rationale and reason for making the option a real choice while revealing the positive impacts that it can have on all outcomes beyond just the physical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most waterbirth studies have been conducted outside the United States with a primary focus on birth outcomes. Studies to date provide limited information about how often women choosing waterbirth end water immersion before the birth and about the reasons for tub exit. This study examines a cohort of women intending a hospital‐based waterbirth and documents the timing and reasons for tub exit. Demographic, clinical, and intrapartum care provider characteristics among women completing waterbirth were compared with those who exited the water prior to birth. Methods: This is a collaborative, multisite study from 2 health systems (8 hospitals) using retrospective electronic health records from August 2014 through December 2017. Results: Of 576 women who entered the waterbirth tub, 48% exited prior to the birth. The primary reasons for exit were maternal choice (50%), medical indication (32%), and provider decision (13%). Women exiting in the first stage did so primarily by choice (57%), whereas medical indication (42%) was the most common reason among women exiting in the second stage. Women who completed waterbirth did not differ from those who exited prior to birth with regard to age, race, ethnicity, country of origin, language, marital status, or intrapartum care provider specialty. Women completing waterbirth were more likely to have previously given birth (72% vs 47%) and to have a provider with more water immersion births during the study period (65% vs 55%). Discussion: Giving birth in the tub was associated with parity and intrapartum care provider experience. Half of the women intending waterbirth in this study exited the tub, with variation in exit reason by stage and provider type. It is important for women to understand that they or their provider may change the birth plan based on labor progress and maternal experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water immersion for labour and birth is consistently challenged as a practice lacking support from high quality evidence. Despite this, the option is available to Australian women. Practitioners are guided by policies and guidelines however, given the research paucity, questions surround the way in which water immersion policies and guidelines are informed. The aims of the study were to determine how water immersion policies and/or guidelines are informed and to what extent the policy/guideline facilitates the option of water immersion for labour and birth with respect to women's choice and autonomy. Phase two of a three phase mixed methods study used critical, post structural interpretive interactionism to examine the process of development and implementation of water immersion policies and guidelines from informant's experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Australian participants. Participants highlighted that the lack of randomised controlled trials had resulted in other forms of evidence being drawn upon to inform water immersion policies and guidelines. This was influenced in part by individual interpretations of evidence with medical views taking precedence. This sometimes resulted in policy and guideline documents that were restrictive with this impacting on women's ability to access the option. Perceived limitations of research and the subsequent translation of this perceived paucity of evidence into policies and guidelines, has impacted on women's ability to exercise choice and autonomy with respect to water immersion and indeed, on the professional autonomy of practitioners who wish to facilitate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water immersion for labour and birth is an option that is increasingly favoured by women. Australian water immersion policies and guidelines commonly specify that practitioners, such as midwives, must undertake further education and training to become accredited. A three-phase mixed methods approach was used. Phase one used critical discourse analysis to determine who or what informs policies and guidelines related to water immersion for labour and/or birth. Phase two examined policy and guideline informants' experiences of the development of policies/guidelines, whilst phase three surveyed Australian midwives' views and experiences of water immersion and their use of and/or involvement in the development of policies and guidelines. Practitioner accreditation for the facilitation of water immersion was a common finding across all phases of the study. An examination of policies and guidelines found that practitioners, namely midwives, were required to meet additional training requirements to facilitate water immersion. Participants of phases two and three identified and discussed accreditation as a significant challenge to the option of water immersion, particularly where there were inconsistencies across documents and in the interpretation of their content. The need for practitioners to be accredited to facilitate water immersion was identified as a major barrier to availability and therefore, women's ability to access the option. Given these findings, the need for accreditation should be challenged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective The principal objective was to test the effectiveness of an online learning tool to improve midwives' accuracy of blood loss estimations in a birthing pool environment. The secondary objective was to assess the acceptability of the online learning tool to the midwives using it. Design A one group pre-test, post-test experiment with immediate and six weeks follow-up to test ability together with an online questionnaire to assess perceived usefulness of an online learning tool. Setting A large NHS maternity hospital comprising an acute care obstetric unit, a small district unit labour ward, one alongside midwifery-led unit and three freestanding midwifery-led units. Participants Volunteer NHS employed midwives who had experience in caring for women labouring and giving birth in water (n = 24). Intervention An online learning tool comprising six randomly ordered short video simulations of blood loss in a birthing pool in real time, and a tutorial giving verbal and pictorial guidance on making accurate blood loss estimations in water was developed then piloted. Midwives' accuracy scores for estimating blood loss in each of the videos were calculated at three timepoints; pre and immediately post the learning component, and six weeks later. The estimated blood loss volume was subtracted from the actual blood loss volume, to give the difference between estimated and real blood loss in millilitres (ml) which was then converted to percentage difference to standardise comparison across the six volumes. The differences between pre- and post-learning for each of the six blood volumes was analysed using a repeated measures ANOVA. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. An online questionnaire incorporated questions using Likert scales to gauge confidence and competence and free text. Free text responses were analysed using a modified form of inductive content analysis. Findings Twenty-two midwives completed the online learning and immediate post-test, 14 completed a post-test after six weeks, and 15 responded to the online questionnaire. Pre-test results showed under-estimation of all blood loss volumes and particularly for the two largest volumes (1000 and 1100 ml). Across all volumes, accuracy of estimation was significantly improved at post-test 1. Accuracy diminished slightly, but overall improvement remained, at post-test 2. Participants rated the online tool positively and made suggestions for refining it. Key conclusions and implications for practice This is the first study measuring the accuracy of midwives' blood loss estimations in a birthing pool using real-time simulations and testing the effectiveness of an online learning tool to improve this important skill. Our findings indicate a need to develop interventions to improve midwives' accuracy at visually estimating blood loss in water, and the potential of an online approach. Most women who labour and/or give birth in water do so in midwifery-led settings without immediate access to medical support. Accuracy in blood loss estimations is an essential core skill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To describe women´s experiences and perceptions of giving birth in water. Design A qualitative study with in-depth interviews three to five months after the birth. A content analysis of the interviews was made. Setting One city-located hospital in Stockholm, offering waterbirth to low risk women. Participants 20 women, 12 primiparas and 8 multiparas, aged 27–39. Measurements and findings The overall theme emerging from the analysis was, "Like an empowering micro-home", which describes the effect of being strengthened, enabled and authorized in the birth process. Three categories were found: "Synergy between body and mind", "Privacy and discretion", and "Natural and pleasant". Key conclusions The immersion in warm water provided the women with conditions that helped them to cope and feel confident during labour and birth. The homelike and limited space of a bathtub helped give a relaxed feeling of privacy, safety, control and focus for the women. Implications for practice This study contributes to a deeper understanding of what waterbirth offers to women. For some women, waterbirth may be a way to accomplish an empowering and positive birth experience, and could work as a tool that preserves the normality of, and increases self-efficacy in, childbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Waterbirth has been increasing in popularity in Asia (Lea W. Water babies. The Straits Times 17 February 2011. Available at http://www.nuh.com.sg/news/media-articles_1504.html). National University Hospital, Singapore, is the pioneer hospital offering waterbirths to women since 2006 in a unique setting of a consultant-led service and continuous foetal monitoring. To date, no studies have been done on the conduct of waterbirths in an Asia. This study aims to evaluate if water immersion during delivery is associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and foetal outcomes as compared with conventional vaginal deliveries. Materials and Methods: Clinical records of women who birthed underwater at National University Hospital between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes of interest were estimated blood loss, third- or fourth degree tears, incidence of postpartum infections or haemorrhage, neonatal Apgars at 1 and 5 min, and neonatal complications requiring intensive care unit admission. Outcomes were compared against a matched control group of women who had conventional vaginal deliveries within ≤1 month. Results: Records of 118 women who birthed underwater were accrued. There was no significant difference in estimated blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage between groups, and there were no cases of maternal infection, third- or fourth-degree perineal tears, or adverse neonatal outcomes in either group. Women in the control group were more likely to have episiotomies (63.6% vs. 0.85%; p < 0.01). Three cases of retained placenta were reported in the waterbirth group (0.03%). Conclusion: Waterbirth at our centre does not appear to be associated with an increased incidence of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. The results of this study supported waterbirth as a birthing option to groups of low-risk women in an obstetrician-led setting with good midwifery support.

Background: Using routinely collected clinical data for observational research is an increasingly important method for data collection, especially when rare outcomes are being explored. The POOL study was commissioned to evaluate the safety of waterbirth in the UK using routine maternity and neonatal clinical data. This paper describes the design, rationale, set-up and pilot for this data linkage study using bespoke methods., Methods: Clinical maternity information systems hold many data items of value for research purposes, but often lack specific data items required for individual studies. This study used the novel method of amending an existing clinical maternity database for the purpose of collecting additional research data fields. In combination with the extraction of existing data fields, this maximised the potential use of existing routinely collected clinical data for research purposes, whilst reducing NHS staff data collection burden.Wellbeing Software ® , provider of the Euroking ® Maternity Information System, added new study specific data fields to their information system, extracted data from participating NHS sites and transferred data for matching with the National Neonatal Research Database to ascertain outcomes for babies admitted to neonatal units. Study set-up processes were put in place for all sites. The data extraction, linkage and cleaning processes were piloted with one pre-selected NHS site., Results: Twenty-six NHS sites were set-up over 27 months (January 2019 - April 2021). Twenty-four thousand maternity records were extracted from the one NHS site, pertaining to the period January 2015 to March 2019. Data field completeness for maternal and neonatal primary outcomes were mostly acceptable. Neonatal identifiers flowed to the National Neonatal Research Database for successful matching and linkage between maternity and neonatal unit records., Discussion: Piloting the data extraction and linkage highlighted the need for additional governance arrangements, training at NHS sites and new processes for the study team to ensure data quality and confidentiality are upheld during the study. Amending existing NHS electronic information systems and accessing clinical data at scale, is possible, but continues to be a time consuming and a technically challenging exercise., Competing Interests: Statement of conflict of interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Background: Research supports water immersion for labour if women are healthy, with no obstetric or medical risk factors. Aims: To evaluate the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of women intending to use immersion in water for labour or birth. Methods: Retrospective audit of clinical outcomes for women intending to labour or birth in water conducted between July 2015 and June 2016, at a tertiary maternity hospital in Western Australia. Obstetric and neonatal data were collected from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was utilised to investigate women who laboured in water stratified by those who birthed in water. Results: A total of 502 women intended to labour or birth in water; 199 (40%) did not and 303 (60%) did. The majority of women using water immersion (179 of 303; 59%) birthed in water. Multiparous women were more likely than primparous to birth in water (73% vs 46%; P < 0.001). Women who birthed in water were at increased odds of: a first stage labour ≤240 min (odds ratio (OR) 2.56, 95% CI 1.34–4.87, P = 0.004); a second stage ≤60 min (OR 3.53, 95% CI 1.82–6.84, P < 0.000); a third stage labour of 11–30 min (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.23–3.78, P = 0.008); and having an intact perineum (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.70–5.64, P < 0.000). Conclusion: Not all women who set out to labour and birth in water achieve their aim. There is a need for high‐quality collaborative research into this option of labour and birth, so women can make an informed choice around this birth option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To describe birth and neonatal outcome in women initiating a homebirth and cared for by a caseload midwifery teams with affiliation to a university hospital. Further, to describe the rate, time, and reasons for transfer between home and hospital. Design A descriptive study using prospectively collected registry data on initiated homebirths. Results A total of 268 women initiated a homebirth and 192 actually gave birth at home, equal to 1.99% of all births in Aarhus Municipality. The majority of the women who initiated a homebirth experienced a vaginal birth (92%) regardless of birthplace. Approximately 28% of the women were transferred from home to hospital during or after birth and 72% of the women had a homebirth as planned. Two children (both born in hospital) were admitted to the neonatal care unit requiring minor observation or treatment. Conclusion The majority of the women included in this study experienced a vaginal birth including those being transferred from home to hospital. Main reasons for being transferred were slow labor progress and rupture of membranes >18 h. The majority of those being transferred were nulliparous women and most transfers happened during birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]