Making physiological birth possible: Birth at a free-standing birth centre in Berlin

Midwives' experiences of labour care in midwifery units. A qualitative interview study in a Norwegian setting

“…Stone notes that professional preparation for FMU-work requires another type of training than that required for work in obstetric units. She notes that midwives who come from a obstetric units to a FMU (in a large German city) have to re-learn birth assistance practices, such as allowing birth to last longer than in obstetric units (14). In the current study, beginning practice in the new work setting was also associated with confronting beliefs about the birthing process itself.…”

“…These settings require midwives to be trained in the skills of normal birth (12)(13)(14). Care in midwifery units is associated with promoting the midwife-mother relationship, facilitating a sense of higher satisfaction and autonomy for both mothers and midwives (13,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19).…”

An integrative literature review on midwives' perceptions on the facilitators and barriers of physiological birth

“…The participants reported that practice and experience were inversely proportionate to their sense of uncertainty. Midwives in the study by Stone () contested the notion of normality, in which normal births were abnormal occurrences in the hospital. Interestingly, medical justifications were viewed as a valuable tool in helping midwives define the boundaries of normality, alleviating women's uncertainties, and averting risks.…”

“…Among 3 studies that discussed having a sense of uncertainty as a barrier to physiological birth, both Stone () and Page and Mander () used the grounded theory approach to capture the experiences of midwives while Davis () adopted the phenomenological‐hermeneutic methodology. The first 2 studies used methods triangulation, while the third study employed data triangulation to enhance its trustworthiness.…”

“…The first 2 studies used methods triangulation, while the third study employed data triangulation to enhance its trustworthiness. Stone () conducted unstructured interviews and focus groups, while Page and Mander () used semi‐structured interviews with participant observation. Both Davis () and Page and Mander () recruited midwives from various practice sites, but Stone () sampled midwives from only 1 birth centre, which limits its generalisability (Polit & Beck, ).…”