Content Analysis of Water Birth Policies With Implications for Practice and Research

OBJECTIVE

To identify areas of agreement and variation in clinical guidance documents (protocols, policies, or guidelines) that direct water birth care.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive.

SETTING

The clinical guidance documents studied covered water birth in home and hospital settings.

SAMPLE

The sample included 22 water birth guidance documents in English from six countries. The documents were obtained by request and resulting snowball sampling.

MEASUREMENTS

The framework method was adapted as an analytic tool, and a structured matrix output was used to organize and support the method of qualitative content analysis using a general inductive approach. Areas of general agreement and variations in practice guidelines for water birth were identified.

RESULTS

Criteria for a term, singleton, and cephalic presentation with reassuring maternal and fetal status were the most consistent for inclusion. The reliance on "low-risk" status was strongly present but without a uniform definition. A history of previous cesarean birth, body mass index, use of opioid pain medication, adequate labor progress, and vaginal bleeding were found to vary in directed care, and scarce supporting evidence was offered. Meconium-stained fluid variably excluded water birth in most documents, but this was not supported by evidence. The inconsistent findings from this study are cohesive in the evidence they provide for needed research in areas that affect access to water birth. The findings also provide nurses and birth providers with evidence-based guidelines for water birth care.

CONCLUSION

There was variation across guidance documents, demonstrating that water immersion is a flexible intervention that can be implemented in different settings and locations while following individual facility protocols for processes for care. An identified area of concern comes from examples of overly restrictive policies for water birth based on opinion or perceived risk rather than evidence from research.

Immersion in water during the second stage of labor: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current obstetrical guidelines in the United States caution firmly against birth in water, but patients remain interested in this intervention. Limited data are available to evaluate the safety and efficacy of water immersion in the second stage of labor for patients and neonates.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the effects of water use during the second stage of labor on maternal outcomes. Second, it aimed to propose guidelines for midwives conducting the second stage of labor in water.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, prospective design was used to evaluate the primary outcomes of maternal experience in labor and trauma to the birth canal and several secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes when participants delivered in water vs in a conventional setting. Participants were recruited at 2 academic state hospitals serving the same low- to middle-income group urban population in the midwestern suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa over a period of 2 years. Individuals in active labor without exclusion criteria were asked to participate in the study. A total of 120 participants were enrolled, with 60 randomized to water birth and 60 to conventional birth. Outcomes were compared using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The use of water during birth significantly reduced the participants' perception of experienced pain than what they expected it to be (P=.006) and enhanced their satisfaction with their ability to cope with labor (P=.010). No differences were noted in trauma to the birth canal. No adverse maternal effects were noted. One early neonatal death occurred in the water group. The most likely cause of death was preexisting intrauterine fetal infection.

CONCLUSION

Participants who delivered in water were significantly more satisfied with their birthing experience. The possible harmful effect of inhalation of fresh water by a baby is not resolved, and a large randomized controlled trial is recommended. It is recommended that immersion in water during the second stage of labor should only be offered by competent birth attendants who follow specific guidelines until clear evidence is available on the possible beneficial or harmful effects. Pending further evidence, we recommend adding salt to the bath to produce a physiological saline solution to reduce theoretical risks associated with fresh water inhalation by the neonate.

The Experience of Land and Water Birth Within the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2012-2017

Consumer demand for water birth has grown within an environment of professional controversy. Access to nonpharmacologic pain relief through water immersion is limited within hospital settings across the United States due to concerns over safety. The study is a secondary analysis of prospective observational Perinatal Data Registry (PDR) used by American Association of Birth Center members (AABC PDR). All births occurring between 2012 and 2017 in the community setting (home and birth center) were included in the analysis. Descriptive, correlational, and relative risk statistics were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Of 26 684 women, those giving birth in water had more favorable outcomes including fewer prolonged first- or second-stage labors, fetal heart rate abnormalities, shoulder dystocias, genital lacerations, episiotomies, hemorrhage, or postpartum transfers. Cord avulsion occurred rarely, but it was more common among water births. Newborns born in water were less likely to require transfer to a higher level of care, be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit, or experience respiratory complication. Among childbearing women of low medical risk, personal preference should drive utilization of nonpharmacologic care practices including water birth. Both land and water births have similar good outcomes within the community setting.

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.