Waterbirth in Sweden – a comparative study

Ulfsdottir, Hanna; Saltvedt, Sissel; Georgsson, Susanne

doi:10.1111/aogs.13286

Cited by 39 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to literature, waterbirth is safe for women with healthy pregnancies and low‐risk births (Davies et al, 2015; Nutter et al, 2014; Taylor et al, 2016; Ulfsdottir, Saltvedt, & Georgsson, 2018; Vanderlaan et al, 2018) and should thus be presented as an alternative for pregnant women who consider ways to give birth. Our findings illustrate that while women appreciate the opportunity to give birth in water, a positive birthing experience can be hampered if the equipment is unsuitable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While studies investigating prevalence of waterbirth is scarce, the literature suggest that it occurs on all continents and possibly is more common in high‐income countries (Garland, 2010). Research has not identified any increase in maternal mortality or morbidity for women who give birth in water with healthy full‐term pregnancies and low‐risk births in cephalic presentation (Nutter, Meyer, Shaw‐Battista, & Marowitz, 2014; Ulfsdottir, Saltvedt, & Georgsson, 2018). No differences has been observed in low risk births between children born in and out of water with regard to neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores, postnatal infections, umbilical cord samples, and admissions to neonatal intensive care (Davies, Davis, Pearce, & Wong, 2015; Taylor et al, 2016; Vanderlaan, Hall, & Lewitt, 2018), indicating that waterbirth is a safe alternative for many women.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Waterbirth in low‐risk pregnancy: An exploration of women’s experiences

Carlsson

Ulfsdottir

2020

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterbirth in low‐risk pregnancy: An exploration of women’s experiences

Carlsson

Ulfsdottir

2020

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that since those women were focused on natural birth assistance, many of the women may not have used oxytocin or other uterotonics after birth to avoid medical interventions. 41 There are few studies such as ours that assess perinatal outcomes for women that chose a birth team specifically for their use of the RMC model of assistance. According to a recent systematic review on the topic, it has been recommended that the choice for the active management of the third period be discussed before birth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…40 Our findings indicating that water birth may prevent perineal tears are in line with results from a recently published Swedish study. 41 There are few studies such as ours that assess perinatal outcomes for women that chose a birth team specifically for their use of the RMC model of assistance. 42 We had a very high percentage of answers for the first questionnaire, 70%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the respectful maternity care model in São Paulo, Brazil: A cross‐sectional study

Giordano

Surita

2019

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The promotion of a positive birth experience has been a main goal of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recent work on improving maternity care. The purpose of this study was to assess the cesarean rates, the prevalence of birth practices, perinatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction, in women involved with the respectful maternity care (RMC) support groups in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study of women with low‐risk pregnancies who were assisted by professionals recommended by the RMC groups. An online questionnaire was administered. Variables to assess birth practices were classified as positive, negative, or unspecified according to the WHO guidelines. The Pearson chi‐square tests and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to assess differences between the groups. Results Five‐hundred and eighty women completed the questionnaire. The cesarean rate was 14.7%, and the operative vaginal birth rate was 9.5%. The VBAC rate was 87.1%, and there was no significant difference in risk for cesarean between women with or without a prior cesarean. Of all women, 83.1% had a midwife's assistance and 75.5% hired a doula; 81.4% gave birth in a nonlithotomic position. The practices of enema, fasting and episiotomy were all under 2%. All 5‐minute Apgar scores were ≥7. Most (83.1%) women reported having a positive birth experience. Conclusions Woman's engagement with the birth support groups and a transdisciplinary team focused on RMC are key elements to achieve positive perinatal outcomes and high women's satisfaction.

show abstract

“…. 최근 미국, 영국, 이탈리아 등 선진 여러 나라에서 수중 출산이 활발히 이루어지고 있으며 수중 진통과 수중 출산의 효과, 수중 출산의 안전성에 관한 연구 결과가 보고 되고 있다 (Davies et al, 2015;Menakaya et al, 2013;Peacock et al, 2018;Poder & Lariviere, 2014;Thöni et al, 2010;Ulfsdottir et al, 2018). 수중 출산의 효과를 검증한 선행연구에 의하면 진통 중 따뜻한 물 속에 들어가 면 몸이 이완되고 진통이 경감되어 스트레스 반응을 극복 할 수 있게 되고 효과적인 자궁수축을 일으킴으로 분만 시 간을 단축한다고 하였다 (Peacock et al, 2018).…”

unclassified

Outcomes of Maternal and Newborn in Waterbirth; A Review of 3-Year Medical Records in a Natural Birth Center

Gang¹,

Park²

2019

J Korean Soc Matern Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the effects of waterbirth on the maternal delivery process and its safety on the newborn babies. Methods: This study is a retrospective study, analyzing the medical records of pregnant women who gave birth at a natural birthing center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The study compared and analyzed a total of 1,907 medical records of pregnant women, composed of 539 women who used a birthing pool and 1,160 women who did not use a birthing pool from 2015 to 2017. The collected data were analyzed by the chisquare test, Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher exact test using SPSS ver. 22.0. The results are shown in the table below. Results: The cesarean section rate was lower in the birthing pool use group, compared to the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.038), with the significantly lower cesarean section rate in birthing pool use group among primigravida women in particular (p=0.002). The birthing pool use group also used oxytocin less frequently than the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.001) And especially in primigravida women, the second stage of delivery in birthing pool use group was found to be shorter than that of the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.045). There were no significant differences in the neonatal Apgar score and the neonatal intensive care unit admission rate between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This study has its meaning as the first report in Korea that analyzes the effects of waterbirth on the maternal delivery process and its safety on the newborn babies.

show abstract

Waterbirth in Sweden – a comparative study

Abstract: In this low-risk population, waterbirth is associated with positive effects on perineal tears, the frequency of interventions, the duration of labor and women's birth experience. Midwives handling waterbirth should be aware of the risk of umbilical cord avulsion.

Cited by 39 publications

References 23 publications

Waterbirth in low‐risk pregnancy: An exploration of women’s experiences

Waterbirth in low‐risk pregnancy: An exploration of women’s experiences

The role of the respectful maternity care model in São Paulo, Brazil: A cross‐sectional study

Outcomes of Maternal and Newborn in Waterbirth; A Review of 3-Year Medical Records in a Natural Birth Center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About