Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study

Lathrop, Anthony; Bonsack, Carrie; Haas, David M.

doi:10.1111/birt.12362

Cited by 32 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a lack of studies comparing experience of waterbirth with conventional birth, using an objective instrument. The findings concerning the association of higher "Own capacity" among women giving birth in water in Study IV, were in line with a similar American study, yet less pronounced (59). A limitation in measuring birth experience among women having a waterbirth is the selected group, women who stay in the water are the ones who experience its benefits.…”

Section: Childbirth Experiencesupporting

confidence: 87%

“…However, the qualitative studies include few informants and are made in settings different from Swedish care. Additionally, an American study assessing birth experience, comparing women's experience of waterbirth with women's experience of uncomplicated conventional births, found a more positive birth experience among women giving birth in water (59).…”

Section: Relaxationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the waters — A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Childbirth Experiencesupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Relaxationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the waters — A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The number of participants with available arterial cord gas data in the waterbirth, water labor, and neither groups were n = 18, 19, 33 (62%-70% missing data). demonstrated 12,15,23 among women who had a waterbirth was not found in this study, women in all groups reported high levels of satisfaction. Because all the women in this study were given the option to use the tub, it is possible that it is the option of waterbirth that provides increased satisfaction, rather than the waterbirth itself.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital‐Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth

Neiman

Austin

Tan

et al. 2019

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…those with instrumental births, those in labour in excess of 12 h, and those who had their labours augmented with oxytocin). The CEQ has since been translated and validated in several languages [19][20][21][22][23], and has been successfully implemented in empirical studies including a large variety of culturally diverse samples [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. However, measurement instruments always hold potential for improvement, and in validating the original Swedish version of the instrument, two domains showed weaker performance; Participation and Professional Support [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring women’s experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire

Dencker

Bergqvist

Berg

et al. 2020

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Women's experiences of labour and birth can have both short-and long-term effects on their physical and psychological health. The original Swedish version of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) has shown to have good psychometric quality and ability to differentiate between groups known to differ in childbirth experience. Two subscales were revised in order to include new items with more relevant content about decision-making and aspects of midwifery support. The aim of the study was to develop new items in two subscales and to test construct validity and reliability of the revised version of CEQ, called CEQ2. Method: A total of 11 new items (Professional Support and Participation) and 14 original items from the first CEQ (Own capacity and Perceived safety), were answered by 682 women with spontaneous onset of labour. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to analyse model fit.Results: The hypothesised four-factor model showed good fit (CMIN = 2.79; RMR = 0.33; GFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.054 and PCLOSE = 0.12) Cronbach's alpha was good for all subscales (0.82, 0.83, 0.76 and 0.73) and for the total scale (0.91). Conclusions: CEQ2, like the first CEQ, yields four important aspects of experience during labour and birth showing good psychometric performance, including decision-making and aspects of midwifery support, in both primiparous and multiparous women.

show abstract

Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study

Abstract: Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

Cited by 32 publications

References 16 publications

Testing the waters — A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals

Testing the waters — A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital‐Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth

Measuring women’s experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About