Perceptions and Practice of Waterbirth: A Survey of Georgia Midwives

Insights of healthcare professionals regarding waterbirths and water immersion during labour: A mixed studies review

AIM

To consolidate healthcare professionals' insights about waterbirths and water immersion during labour.

DESIGN

Mixed studies review.

DATA SOURCES

Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception dates till June 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Pluye and Hong's mixed studies review framework guided this review. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using the convergent qualitative synthesis method, and results were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified from the 22 included studies: (1) believing in waterbirths, (2) opposing forces and (3) plotting the course ahead.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals reported different views about waterbirths and water immersion practices; midwives were most likely to support these practices, followed by nurses and lastly, few physicians supported them. Reasons for opposing waterbirths include insufficient training and support from colleagues as well as concerns about work efficiency, waterbirth safety and litigation issues.

IMPACT

The available evidence suggests the need to provide waterbirth training for healthcare professionals, equip healthcare facilities with necessary waterbirth-related infrastructure and develop appropriate waterbirth policies/guidelines. Healthcare professionals could also consider providing antenatal waterbirth education to women and obtain women's feedback to improve current policies/guidelines. Future research should explore the views of different types of healthcare professionals from more diverse cultures.

REPORTING METHOD

The PRISMA guidelines.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Systematic review.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives.

DESIGN

A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches.

REVIEW METHODS

Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes.

RESULTS

Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included-quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited.

'They follow the wants and needs of an institution': Midwives' views of water immersion

BACKGROUND

A midwife's ability to fully support women's autonomy and self-determination with respect to midwifery care is often challenging. This is particularly true of water immersion for labour and birth. However, the woman's agency over what happens to her body and that of her unborn baby should be key considerations for maternity care provision.

OBJECTIVES

A three phased mixed-methods study was undertaken to examine how water immersion policies and guidelines are informed. Phase three of this study captured the knowledge and experiences of Australian midwives, their support for water immersion and their experiences of using policies and guidelines to inform and facilitate the practice.

METHODS

Critical, post structural, interpretive interactionism was used to examine more than 300 responses to three open-ended questions included in a survey of 233 midwives. Comment data were analysed to provide further insight, context and meaning to previously reported results.

FINDINGS

Findings demonstrated a complex, multidimensional interplay of factors that impacted on both the midwife's ability to offer and the woman's decision to use water immersion under the themes 'the reality of the system', 'the authoritative 'others'' and 'the pseudo decision-makers'. Multiple scaffolded levels were identified, each influenced by the wider macro-socio-political landscape of Australian midwifery care.

CONCLUSIONS

The insight gained from examining midwives' views and opinions of water for labour and birth, has aided in contextualising previously reported results. Such insight highlights the importance of qualitative research in challenging the status quo and working towards woman-centred practice and policy.

Practitioner accreditation for the practice of water immersion during labour and birth: Results from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Water immersion for labour and birth is an option that is increasingly favoured by women. Australian water immersion policies and guidelines commonly specify that practitioners, such as midwives, must undertake further education and training to become accredited.

METHOD

A three-phase mixed methods approach was used. Phase one used critical discourse analysis to determine who or what informs policies and guidelines related to water immersion for labour and/or birth. Phase two examined policy and guideline informants' experiences of the development of policies/guidelines, whilst phase three surveyed Australian midwives' views and experiences of water immersion and their use of and/or involvement in the development of policies and guidelines.

FINDINGS

Practitioner accreditation for the facilitation of water immersion was a common finding across all phases of the study. An examination of policies and guidelines found that practitioners, namely midwives, were required to meet additional training requirements to facilitate water immersion. Participants of phases two and three identified and discussed accreditation as a significant challenge to the option of water immersion, particularly where there were inconsistencies across documents and in the interpretation of their content.

CONCLUSION

The need for practitioners to be accredited to facilitate water immersion was identified as a major barrier to availability and therefore, women's ability to access the option. Given these findings, the need for accreditation should be challenged.

Certified Nurse-Midwives' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors About Infant Safe Sleep

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of certified nurse-midwives related to sudden infant death syndrome and infant safe sleep. However, this population is an important and trusted source of information for pregnant women and may provide guidance on infant care. We explored these topics with certified nurse-midwives to identify potential barriers as well as enabling and reinforcing factors associated with providing infant safe sleep education in the prenatal health care environment.

METHODS

Participants in this cross-sectional survey study were certified nurse-midwives who provide prenatal health care to women in Ohio. Surveys were mailed to all certified nurse-midwives listed with the licensing registry of the Ohio Board of Nursing (N = 333).

RESULTS

A total of 153 eligible respondents completed the survey for a response rate of 55%. Most participants had at least some knowledge of the infant safe sleep recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, and two-thirds had positive attitudes about providing infant safe sleep education in the prenatal environment. Many participants (61%) perceived that there were barriers to providing prenatal infant safe sleep education, but nearly all (94%) indicated that they were interested in providing this education to their patients. Positive attitudes about providing infant safe sleep education were predictive of whether they discussed this topic with their patients.

DISCUSSION

Certified nurse-midwives routinely provide guidance on infant care, and it is important that they are familiar with current evidence-based recommendations on infant safe sleep. They should be supported in their desire to provide infant safe sleep education to their prenatal patients. In addition, efforts should be made to improve attitudes and social norms related to providing infant safe sleep education in the prenatal environment.

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.

The Waterbirth Project: São Bernardo Hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

The following quantitative observational study aimed to analyse the maternal and neonatal outcomes of 90 low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in water at São Bernardo Hospital.

METHODS

A form containing information on the obstetric history of the parturient, the type of immersion, and the labour and birth follow-up was used by midwives to collect the data.

BACKGROUND

The Apgar score (at 1min after birth) used in this study, called Aqua Apgar, was adapted by Cornelia Enning.

RESULTS

The mean water immersion time was 1h and 46min and had an influence on the duration of labour (mean 5h and 37min), with a statistically significant difference (P=0.004). There was a decreased cervical dilatation time and a shorter duration of the expulsion phase. In the immersion scenario, 30% of the women did not undergo any examination to assess the length of the cervix, and 57.8% presented intact perennial areas or first-degree tears. As for neonatal outcomes, during maternal immersion, 97% maintained normal fetal heart rates (between 110 and 160 beats per minute) and Aqua Apgar was higher than 7, both in the first minute (mean of 9.4) and in the fifth minute of life (mean of 9.9).

CONCLUSION

These safety outcomes, based on sound scientific evidence, should increasingly support and inform clinical decisions and increase the number of waterbirths in health facilities. The results of this study align with growing evidence that suggests waterbirth is a safe delivery option and therefore should be offered to women.

Australian midwives views and experiences of practice and politics related to water immersion for labour and birth: A web based survey

BACKGROUND

There is little published research that has examined practitioners' views and experiences of pain relieving measures commonly used during labour and birth, particularly for non-pharmacological measures such as water immersion. Furthermore, there is minimal published research examining the process of policy and guideline development, that is, the translation of published research to usable practice guidance.

AIMS

The aims of phase three of a larger study were to explore midwives knowledge, experiences and support for the option of water immersion for labour and birth in practice and their involvement, if any, in development of policy and guidelines pertaining to the option.

METHODS

Phase three of a three phased mixed methods study included a web based survey of 234 Australian midwives who had facilitated and/or been involved in the development of policies and/or guidelines relating to the practice of water immersion.

FINDINGS

Midwives who participated in this study were supportive of both water immersion for labour and birth reiterating documented benefits of reduced pain, maternal relaxation and a positive birth experience. The most significant concerns were maternal collapse, the difficulty of estimating blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage whilst barriers included lack of accredited staff, lifting equipment and negative attitudes. Midwives indicated that policy/guideline documents limited their ability to facilitate water immersion and did not always to support women's informed choice.

CONCLUSION

Midwives who participated in this study supported the practice of water immersion reiterating the benefits documented in the literature and minimal risk to the woman and baby.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia approved the research.

Water immersion during labor and birth: is there an extra cost for hospitals?

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Water immersion during labor and birth is growing in popularity, and many hospitals are now considering offering this service to laboring women. Some advantages of water immersion are demonstrated, but others remain uncertain, and particularly, few studies have examined the financial impact of such a device on hospitals. This study simulated what could be the extra cost of water immersion for hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical outcomes were drawn from the results of systematic reviews already published, and cost units were those used in the Quebec health network. A decision tree was used with microsimulations of representative laboring women. Sensitivity analyses were performed as regards analgesic use and labor duration.

RESULTS

Microsimulations indicated an extra cost between $166.41 and $274.76 (2014 Canadian dollars) for each laboring woman as regards the scenario considered. The average extra cost was $221.12 (95% confidence interval, 219.97-222.28).

CONCLUSION

While water immersion allows better clinical outcomes, implementation and other costs are higher than the savings generated, which leads to a small extra cost to allow women to potentially have more relaxation and less pain.

Systematic Review of Hydrotherapy Research: Does a Warm Bath in Labor Promote Normal Physiologic Childbirth?

Health sciences research was systematically reviewed to assess randomized controlled trials of standard care versus immersion hydrotherapy in labor before conventional childbirth. Seven studies of 2615 women were included. Six trials examined hydrotherapy in midwifery care and found an effect of pain relief; of these, 2 examined analgesia and found reduced use among women who bathed in labor. One study each found that hydrotherapy reduced maternal anxiety and fetal malpresentation, increased maternal satisfaction with movement and privacy, and resulted in cervical dilation progress equivalent to standard labor augmentation practices. Studies examined more than 30 fetal and neonatal outcomes, and no benefit or harm of hydrotherapy was identified. Two trials had anomalous findings of increased newborn resuscitation or nursery admission after hydrotherapy, which were not supported by additional results in the same or other studies. Review findings demonstrate that intrapartum immersion hydrotherapy is a helpful and benign practice. Hydrotherapy facilitates physiologic childbirth and may increase satisfaction with care. Maternity care providers are recommended to include hydrotherapy among routine labor pain management options and consider immersion to promote progress of normal or protracted labor, particularly among women with preferences to avoid obstetric medications and procedures.

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.

Case Report of Haemophilus parainfluenzae Sepsis in a Newborn Infant Following Water Birth and a Review of Literature

Water birth has grown in popularity over the recent years. Although beneficial for mothers, there are concerns for the infants. There are previous reports of infection following water birth. The information regarding infection with Haemophilus parainfluenzae is limited. We report a case of a neonate with H. parainfluenzae bacteremia following water birth. The child was successfully treated with both antibiotic and supportive care. Previous reports of neonatal H. parainfluenzae infection are reviewed.

Fatal legionellosis after water birth, Texas, USA, 2014

In 2014, a fatal infection with Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 occurred in a neonate after a water birth. The death highlighted the need for infection control education, client awareness, and standardization of cleaning procedures in Texas midwife facilities.

[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.

Case report: severe disseminated adenovirus infection in a neonate following water birth delivery

Adenovirus infections are a common cause of respiratory and enteric illnesses of late infancy and childhood. In neonates, adenovirus infections are rare, carrying a high morbidity and mortality rate. We present a case of infant who developed severe pneumonia and disseminated adenoviral infection following water birth delivery to a mother with gastroenteritis. The infant's infection was due to an adenovirus strain that has not been previously reported in neonates.

Helping women but hurting ourselves? Neck and upper back musculoskeletal symptoms in a cohort of Australian Midwives

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of neck and upper back musculoskeletal symptoms in a group of Australian midwives and explore individual characteristics and workplace exposures associated with these symptoms.

DESIGN

cross-sectional, using data from the Nurses and Midwives e-Cohort Study, a longitudinal, electronic survey of midwives and nurses in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

SETTING

data were collected via an online survey in 2006-2008.

PARTICIPANTS

qualified Australian midwives aged 23-70 years.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

We undertook descriptive analysis of the sample, calculated prevalence and examined associations between individual and workplace variables and neck and upper back musculoskeletal symptoms. Variables achieving p<0.1 in bivariate analysis were entered simultaneously into logistic regression models. Overall prevalence rates were 48.8% for neck and 28.2% for upper back musculoskeletal symptoms; work-related prevalence was 40.8% (neck) and 24.5% (upper back), comparable to reported rates among nurses and physicians. Presence of symptoms in the adjacent area was associated with greater than a fourfold increased risk for neck and upper back symptoms. Participants with care responsibility for an adult dependent were 36% more likely to report neck symptoms. Current shift work and total physical activity were associated with decreased likelihood of neck and upper back symptoms, respectively. Psychological job demands were only weakly associated with upper back symptoms, possibly because the survey tool could not capture a sufficiently broad range of psychosocial exposures to present a complete picture. A striking finding was that work in awkward postures conferred an increased risk of 35% for neck and nearly 50% for upper back symptoms.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

neck and upper back musculoskeletal symptoms were prevalent in this sample. Both individual and workplace factors were significantly associated with neck and/or upper back symptoms. Psychological job demands and work in awkward postures are potentially modifiable exposures that deserve further examination.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

midwives who are or may become carers for adult dependents should be aware of a possible increased risk for neck symptoms. It may be prudent for midwives and those who employ/supervise them to monitor and, where possible, jointly develop strategies to mitigate psychological job demands. The potential hazard posed by work in awkward postures warrants consideration of how midwives may minimize time spent working in these postures.