Women's experiences of waterbirth compared with conventional uncomplicated births

Ulfsdottir, Hanna; Saltvedt, Sissel; Georgsson, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.midw.2019.102547

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the open‐ended questions analysed in this report, respondents also answered the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (Dencker, Taft, Bergqvist, Lilja, & Berg, 2010). The results of that questionnaire are reported elsewhere (Ulfsdottir, Saltvedt, & Georgsson, 2019b) and will not be presented in the results of this analysis.…”

Section: The Studymentioning

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

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: The Studymentioning

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

“…These site-specific guidelines are consistent with those of the American College of Nurse-Midwives-A Model Practice Template for Hydrotherapy in Labor and Birth, which details evidence-based practices for waterbirth. 4 The opportunity to have a waterbirth can be a highly desired experience for many families. The results of this study add to the evidence base supporting access to waterbirth as an extension of using hydrotherapy in the context of a low-risk pregnancy and labor for those who desire it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of water as a therapy for pain and other ailments, currently referred to as hydrotherapy, has been documented as early as the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, and Rome . During labor, warm water immersion is safe for both the mother and fetus and has demonstrated positive effects for maternal experience in labor including decreased epidural use, improved coping with pain, shorter labor, and a greater sense of control during the labor process …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective comparison of waterbirth outcomes in two United States hospital settings

Bailey

Zielinski

Emeis

et al. 2019

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…A second-degree perineal trauma refers to the disruption of the perineal muscles and the rectovaginal fascia, and could result in pelvic organ prolapse and may have a negative effect on the individual's sexual function 1,2 . For those studies reporting that a waterbirth may be protective of a second-degree tear, it has been proposed that the underlying mechanisms involve the buoyancy effect of water that reduces the weight of the infant upon delivery 3 , the positive effect of warmth resulting in vasodilation and increased perineal blood supply 4 , and a more conservative management of birth with more spontaneous pushing and a slower delivery 5 .…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel insights on the possible effects of water exposure on the structural integrity of the perineum during a waterbirth

Papoutsis¹

2020

Eur J Midwifery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women's experiences of waterbirth compared with conventional uncomplicated births

Cited by 25 publications

References 29 publications

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

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

A retrospective comparison of waterbirth outcomes in two United States hospital settings

Novel insights on the possible effects of water exposure on the structural integrity of the perineum during a waterbirth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About