Water birth, more than a trendy alternative: a prospective, observational study

Prevention of Early-Onset Neonatal Group B Streptococcal Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Major Guidelines

Importance

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonization during pregnancy is associated with significant neonatal morbidity and mortality and represents a major public health concern, often associated with poor screening and management.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published influential guidelines on the screening and management of this clinical entity during antenatal and intrapartum periods.

Evidence Acquisition

A descriptive review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada on the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease was carried out.

Results

There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the optimal screening specimen type, indications for intrapartum antibiotic administration such as bacteriuria during pregnancy, clinical signs of chorioamnionitis or maternal pyrexia, and history of GBS-related neonatal disease. There is also agreement on several conditions where no intervention is recommended, that is, antepartum treatment of GBS and GBS-positive women with planned cesarean delivery and intact membranes. Controversy exists regarding the optimal screening time, with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating against routine screening and on management strategies related to preterm labor and preterm prelabor rupture of membranes.

Conclusions

The development of consistent international practice protocols for the timely screening of GBS and effective management of this clinical entity both during pregnancy and the intrapartum period seems of paramount importance to safely guide clinical practice and subsequently improve neonatal outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth

OBJECTIVES

Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I2 was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.

RESULTS

We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019147001.

Waterbirths were associated with low pain relief during delivery, high breastfeeding success and healthy newborn infants

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 1,623 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°C 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 days 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.

Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03724-6.

A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women's Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels

OBJECTIVES

To identify attributes (i.e., characteristics describing a scenario) and levels (i.e., each characteristic may be defined by a different level) that would be included in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to evaluate women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

METHODS

A mixed-method approach, combining systematic reviews of the literature and patient focus groups to identify attributes and levels explaining women's preferences. After the focus groups, preference exercises were conducted and led to the creation of the questionnaire, including the DCE. A qualitative validation of the questionnaire was conducted with women from the focus groups and with medical experts.

RESULTS

The literature reviews provided 26 attributes to be considered for childbirth in water, and focus groups identified 14 additional attributes. From these 40 attributes, preference exercises allowed us to select four for the DCE, in addition to the birth mode. Labor duration was also included, even if it was not well ranked, as it is the main clinical outcome in the literature. Validation with experts and women did not change the choice of attributes but slightly changed the levels selected. The final six attributes were: birth mode, duration of the labor phase, pain sensation, risk of severe tears in the perineum during the expulsion of the newborn, risk of death of the newborn, and general condition of the newborn (Apgar) score at 5 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This study allowed us to detail all the stages for the design of a DCE questionnaire. To date, this is the first study of this kind in the context of women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

Neonatal Outcomes Following Delivery in Water: Evaluation of Safety in a District General Hospital

Introduction Giving birth in water has increased in popularity over recent years, with potential benefits in terms of maternal comfort and decreased rates of instrumental delivery. Some concerns have been raised about possible adverse neonatal outcomes, including hypothermia and respiratory distress. There is not currently, however, a clear consensus in the literature. This study sought to assess the safety of delivering in water for low-risk vaginal deliveries in a District General Hospital in the United Kingdom. Methods Prospectively collected hospital data was obtained for all deliveries between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2016 at the Great Western Hospital, Swindon. The dataset was limited to full-term babies born by unassisted vaginal delivery following spontaneous labour; 3507 babies were included in the analyses. Pre-specified outcomes included neonatal unit admission, Apgar scores, and temperature after delivery. Results During the two-year period studied, there were 592 waterbirths and 2915 non-waterbirths. There was no significant difference in rates of neonatal unit admission between waterbirths and non-waterbirths. One-minute Apgar scores were slightly higher among those born in water (P = 0.04); this difference attenuated by five minutes of age. There was no difference in temperature after delivery between the two groups. Conclusions An evaluation of safety in a District General Hospital has demonstrated similar postnatal outcomes among babies born in water, compared to those born on land. Further work examining longer-term outcomes would help assess whether this persists beyond the newborn period.

The effect of waterbirth on neonatal mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Women have been giving birth in water in many centers across the globe; however, the practice remains controversial. Qualitative studies highlight the benefits that waterbirth confers on the laboring woman, though due to the nature of the intervention, it is not surprising that there are few randomized controlled trials available to inform practice. Much of the criticism directed at waterbirth focuses on the potential impact on the neonate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effect of waterbirth, compared to landbirth, on the mortality and morbidity of neonates born to low risk women.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review considered studies that included low risk, well, pregnant women who labor and birth spontaneously, at term (37-42 weeks), with a single baby in a cephalic presentation. Low risk pregnancies are defined as pregnancies with an absence of co-morbidity or obstetric complication, such as maternal diabetes, previous cesarean section, high blood pressure or other illness. Women may be experiencing their first or subsequent pregnancy. The fetus must also be well and without any co-morbidity or complication.The intervention of interest is waterbirth. The comparator is landbirth. Women and their babies must be cared for by qualified maternity healthcare providers throughout their labor and birth. The birth setting must be clearly described but can include home, hospital or birth center, either freestanding or attached to a hospital.This review considered randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational prospective and retrospective cohort studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A multi-step search strategy was utilized to find published and unpublished studies, in English between January 1999 and June 2014.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

The first author assessed the quality of all eligible studies. The three secondary authors independently assessed six studies each, followed by group discussion using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal checklist.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted using a standardized extraction tool from Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Quantitative studies were pooled, where possible, for meta-analysis using software provided by Cochrane. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratio or relative risk, according to study design, and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed statistically using the standard Chi-square test.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses of 12 studies showed that for the majority of outcomes measured in this review there is little difference between waterbirth and landbirth groups. Meta-analysis was not conducted for mortality within 24 days of birth. Heterogeneity was significant between studies for APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration). scores ≤7 at one minute and admission to Special Care nursery. Sensitivity analysis for case control studies describing infection found results that were not statistically significant (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05-11.06). Results of meta-analysis were also not significant for studies describing resuscitation with oxygen (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.14-8.79) and Respiratory Distress Syndrome (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44-1.49). Results comparing APGAR scores ≤7 at five minutes for waterbirth and landbirth groups results for included RCTs demonstrated results that were not statistically significant (OR 6.4, 95% CI 0.63-64.71). However, results for included cohort studies describing APGAR scores ≤7 at 5 minutes indicate neonates are less likely to have scores ≤7 in the waterbirth group (OR 0.32, 95% 0.15-0.68). Data were not statistically significant for meta-analysis describing admission to NICU (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13-1.96) between water and landbirth groups. The differences in arterial (MD 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.02) and venous (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03-0.03) cord pH, while statistically significant, were clinically negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of data reporting on a variety of neonatal clinical outcomes comparing land with waterbirth do not suggest that outcomes are worse for babies born following waterbirth. Meta-analysis of results for five-minute APGAR scores ≤7 should be treated with caution due to the different direction of results for meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Data measuring cord pH (an objective measure of neonatal wellbeing) were robust and showed no difference between groups. Overall this review was limited by heterogeneity between studies and meta-analysis could not be conducted on a number of outcomes. Waterbirth does not appear to be associated with adverse outcomes for the neonate in a population of low risk women.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There is no evidence to suggest that the practice of waterbirth in a low risk population is harmful to the neonate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

There is a paucity of high level evidence to guide practice in the area of waterbirth. It is unlikely that randomized controlled trials on waterbirth will be acceptable to childbearing women or maternity caregivers. Observational studies are a more appropriate choice for researchers in this field as they offer a more practical and ethical approach.

Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, 9% of babies born in the UK were delivered underwater. Waterbirth is increasing in popularity, despite uncertainty regarding its safety for neonates. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the existing evidence for neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

METHODS

A structured electronic database search was performed with no language restrictions. All comparative studies which reported neonatal outcomes following waterbirth, and that were published since 1995, were included. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme scoring system. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Data for each neonatal outcome were tabulated and analysed. Meta-analysis was performed for comparable studies which reported sufficient data.

RESULTS

The majority of the 29 included studies were small, with limited follow-up and methodological flaws. They were mostly conducted in Europe and high-income countries. Reporting of data was heterogeneous. No significant difference in neonatal mortality, neonatal intensive care unit/special care baby unit admission rate, Apgar scores, umbilical cord gases or infection rates was found between babies delivered into water and on land.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify definitive evidence that waterbirth causes harm to neonates compared with land birth. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no additional risks or benefits for neonates when comparing waterbirth and conventional delivery on land.

Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Following Waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking.

METHODS

We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity.

RESULTS

Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women.

WATER BIRTH IN A MATERNITY hospital OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY HEALTH SECTOR IN SANTA CATARINA, BRAZIL: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

ABSTRACT The aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify the prevalence of water births in a maternity hospital of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and to investigate the association between sociodemographic and obstetric variables and water birth. The sample consisted of 973 women who had normal births between June 2007 and May 2013. Data was analyzed through descriptive and bivariate statistics, and estimated prevalence and tested associations through the use of the chi-square test; the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio were calculated. The prevalence of water births was 13.7%. Of the 153 women who had water birth, most were aged between 20 to 34 years old (122), had a companion (112), a college degree (136), were primiparous (101), had a pregnancy without complications (129) and were admitted in active labor (94). There was no association between sociodemographic characteristics and obstetric outcomes in the bivariate and multivariate analyses and in the adjusted model. Only women with private sources for payment had the opportunity to give birth in water.

[Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature]

CONTEXT

Water birth is under debate among professionals. For the proponents of this approach, immersion in water during labour and birth may increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a model of obstetric care more focused on the needs of mothers, particularly the empowerment of women to realize their full potential. In contrast, major critics cite a risk of inhalation of water for the newborn and a risk of infection for the mother and the newborn.

OBJECTIVE

This review tracks the state of scientific knowledge about water birth in order to determine if it can be generalized in hospitals.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database. The period covered is from January 1989 to May 2013. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed with the analysis guide of the Haute Autorité de santé.

RESULTS

The level of evidence of the studies identified goes from moderate to low, particularly as regard to studies analysing the expulsion phase.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to recommend immersion in water during the labour phase. No recommendation can be made as regard to the foetal expulsion phase.

A comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes between water immersion during labor and conventional labor and delivery

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during the first stage of labor can reduce the length of the first stage and epidural/spinal analgesia use; however, there is limited information regarding other outcomes. Our purpose was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women who underwent water immersion during the first stage of labor with those who underwent conventional labor and delivery.

METHODS

Healthy primipara with singleton pregnancies and cephalic presentation were included in the study. Patients were allowed to choose water immersion during labor or conventional labor and delivery. For water immersion, the water temperature was maintained at 35-38°C and subjects left the tub on complete cervical dilatation. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess pain during labor. Other outcome measures included duration of labor, type of delivery, blood loss, pelvic floor dysfunction and symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 42 days after delivery, infant Apgar scores, and need for transfer of the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Thirty eight subjects (mean age, 28.66 ± 3.08 y) received water immersion and 70 (mean age, 27.89 ± 2.99 y) underwent conventional labor and delivery. There were no differences in maternal height, weight, age, gestational age, gravidity, and newborn weight between the groups (all, p>0.05). VAS pain scores were significantly greater in the conventional labor group at 30 min and 60 min after a cervical dilatation of 3 cm (30 min: 10 [9, 10] vs. 6 [5, 8]; 60 min: 10 [10, 10] vs. 7 [6, 8], respectively, both, p<0.001). The duration of labor and postpartum bleeding were similar between the groups (all, p>0.05). The cesarean section rate was higher in the conventional labor group (32.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.026). The 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores were similar between the groups. Maternal and neonatal culture results were similar between the groups. SUI symptoms at 42 days after delivery was significantly higher in the conventional labor group (25.5% vs. 6.1%, respectively, p=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Water immersion can reduce labor pain, and is associated with a lower rate of cesarean delivery and SUI symptoms at 42 days.

Birth, bath, and beyond: the science and safety of water immersion during labor and birth

The 2014 objection to birth in water voiced by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in ACOG Bulletin #594 on immersion in water during labor and birth is nothing new. The Committee on Fetus and Newborn published the very same opinion in 2005, based on a case report that was published in 2002 in the journal Pediatrics. What has changed since 2002 is a growing body of evidence that reports on the safety and efficacy of labor and birth in water. This article reviews the retrospective literature on water birth and explains newborn physiology and the protective mechanisms that prevent babies from breathing during a birth in water.

Integrative care of the mother-infant dyad

There are many options for natural and preventative therapies during pregnancy and childbirth, which may aid in minimizing the use of pharmaceuticals and invasive procedures. Patients may seek these out, and it is important for physicians to have some basic knowledge to guide their choices. Of all therapies, the most important are nutrition for optimizing health and the provision of continuous support during labor.