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

Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences

INTRODUCTION

Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.

METHODS

A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

OBJECTIVE

 Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

 Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders.

RESULTS

 We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-17.02; p = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63-2,674; p = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05-7.24; p = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01-29.78; p = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.60; p = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.12; p < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.48; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications.

KEY POINTS

· High-quality evidence is not available for neonatal safety of waterbirth; therefore, retrospective studies still represent the main body of evidence.. · Differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them, the increased risk of cord avulsion is a potentially fatal event.. · A trained staff must assist women who chose to deliver in water and cord avulsion must be promptly recognized and managed to avoid severe neonatal complications..

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to conduct a thorough and contemporary assessment of maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth in comparison with land-based birth.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and gray literature sources, from inception to February 28, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who delivered either conventionally or while submerged in water.

METHODS

Pooled unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method). We assessed the 95% prediction intervals to estimate the likely range of future study results. To evaluate the robustness of the results, we calculated fragility indices. Maternal infection was designated as the primary outcome, whereas postpartum hemorrhage, perineal lacerations, obstetrical anal sphincter injury, umbilical cord avulsion, low Apgar scores, neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation, neonatal infection, neonatal mortality within 30 days of birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20,642 articles identified, 52 were included in the meta-analyses. Based on data from observational studies, water birth was not associated with increased probability of maternal infection compared with land birth (10 articles, 113,395 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.14). Patients undergoing water birth had decreased odds of postpartum hemorrhage (21 articles, 149,732 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94). Neonates delivered while submerged in water had increased odds of cord avulsion (10 articles, 91,504 pregnancies; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.24) and decreased odds of low Apgar scores (21 articles, 165,917 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.82), neonatal infection (15 articles, 53,635 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97), neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation (19 articles, 181,001 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.84), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (30 articles, 287,698 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.70).

CONCLUSION

When compared with land birth, water birth does not appear to increase the risk of most maternal and neonatal complications. Like any other delivery method, water birth has its unique considerations and potential risks, which health care providers and expectant parents should evaluate thoroughly. However, with proper precautions in place, water birth can be a reasonable choice for mothers and newborns, in facilities equipped to conduct water births safely.

Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor

BACKGROUND

Although there is scientific evidence regarding the use of water immersion during labor, this evidence is primarily focused on the first stage of labor. There is limited scientific evidence on water immersion during the second stage of labor.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and synthesis of contemporary evidence related to water birth, with a specific focus on the second stage of labor.

METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature published between January 2018 and October 2023 was carried out. A synthesis of the results was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were utilized as information sources. The search strategy was designed using the keywords "immersion" and "parturition", along with their relevant synonyms. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies employing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and quantitative and qualitative approaches focusing on pregnant women undergoing water immersion at any stage of the labor process.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were selected: two systematic reviews (one quantitative and one qualitative), five cohort studies, one case-control study, one cross-sectional observational study, and two qualitative studies. A thorough assessment of the methodology was performed using several specific tools: the Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk of Bias 2) tool for systematic reviews, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies, STROBE for observational descriptive studies, and CASPe for qualitative studies. The results provided fundamental insights that will contribute to conceptual standardization regarding the effects of water birth on maternal and fetal health. Additionally, a synthesis of the results was performed concerning types of delivery, analgesia use, pain perception, and maternal satisfaction with the water birth experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we conclude that the results regarding delivery types, labor durations, and analgesia use found in the literature, along with statistically significant maternal/fetal effects, are crucial for making recommendations regarding the use of water during labor in any of its stages if the woman desires it safely.

The practicalities of adapting UK maternity clinical information systems for observational research: Experiences of the POOL study

Background

Using routinely collected clinical data for observational research is an increasingly important method for data collection, especially when rare outcomes are being explored. The POOL study was commissioned to evaluate the safety of waterbirth in the UK using routine maternity and neonatal clinical data. This paper describes the design, rationale, set-up and pilot for this data linkage study using bespoke methods.

Methods

Clinical maternity information systems hold many data items of value for research purposes, but often lack specific data items required for individual studies. This study used the novel method of amending an existing clinical maternity database for the purpose of collecting additional research data fields. In combination with the extraction of existing data fields, this maximised the potential use of existing routinely collected clinical data for research purposes, whilst reducing NHS staff data collection burden.Wellbeing Software®, provider of the Euroking® Maternity Information System, added new study specific data fields to their information system, extracted data from participating NHS sites and transferred data for matching with the National Neonatal Research Database to ascertain outcomes for babies admitted to neonatal units. Study set-up processes were put in place for all sites. The data extraction, linkage and cleaning processes were piloted with one pre-selected NHS site.

Results

Twenty-six NHS sites were set-up over 27 months (January 2019 - April 2021). Twenty-four thousand maternity records were extracted from the one NHS site, pertaining to the period January 2015 to March 2019. Data field completeness for maternal and neonatal primary outcomes were mostly acceptable. Neonatal identifiers flowed to the National Neonatal Research Database for successful matching and linkage between maternity and neonatal unit records.

Discussion

Piloting the data extraction and linkage highlighted the need for additional governance arrangements, training at NHS sites and new processes for the study team to ensure data quality and confidentiality are upheld during the study. Amending existing NHS electronic information systems and accessing clinical data at scale, is possible, but continues to be a time consuming and a technically challenging exercise.

Alternate Birth Strategies

Community birth is defined as birth that occurs outside the hospital setting. Birthing in a birth center can be safe for certain patient populations. Home birth can also be safe in well-selected patient with a well-established transfer infrastructure should an emergency occur. Unfortunately, many areas of the United States and the world do not have this infrastructure, limiting access to safe community birth. Immersion during labor has been associated with decreased need for epidural and pain medication. Delivery should not occur in water due to concerns for infection and cord avulsion. Umbilical cord non-severance (also called lotus birth) and placentophagy should be counseled against due to well-documented risks without clear benefit. Birth plans and options should be regularly discussed during pregnancy visits.

Intrapartum care policies in high-income countries with a universal health system: a scoping review

Evidence-based and sustainable intrapartum care policies are essential for safer, effective, and positive birth experiences. This scoping review aimed to map intrapartum care policies for pregnant women at low-risk of complications, in high-income countries with a universal health system. The study followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and PRISMA-ScR. Search was conducted on CINAHL-EBSCO, Scopus, MEDLINE-Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-EBSCO, and, Academic Search Complete-EBSCO. Grey literature was searched, references screened and experts contacted for additional studies/policies. Data were extracted/analysed by two independent reviewers and results were presented in tabular and narrative format. The concept was governmental intrapartum care policies, the context were OECD high-income countries with a health-financing system founded on the Beveridge Model and the participants were low-risk pregnant women From the 561 records screened, 22 were selected, concerning intrapartum care policies from Australia, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. All the included records were retrieved in the grey literature. No intrapartum care governmental policies were found for Greece, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Some countries do not refer to all the analysed care aspects and there are differences in detail, depth, range, and scientific. The policies show general similarities but differ in the timing and the content of the recommended intrapartum care. Not all of the analysed countries have intrapartum care policies and those who have shown differences between recommendations. These results can be used to create/revise intrapartum care policies.

Is a randomized controlled trial of waterbirth possible? An Australian feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention-to-treat analysis, and per-protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage.

RESULTS

1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per-protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage.

CONCLUSIONS

A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention-to-treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible.

Beyond the epidural: Alternatives to neuraxial labor analgesia

Labor creates an intense pain experienced by women across the world. Although neuraxial analgesia is the most effective treatment of labor pain, in many cases, it may not be undesired, not available, or have contraindications. In addition, satisfaction with labor analgesia is not only determined by the efficacy of analgesia but a woman's sense of agency and involvement in the childbirth experience are also key contributors. Providing safe choices for labor analgesia and support is central to creating a tailored, safe, and effective analgesic treatment plan with high maternal satisfaction. Healthcare provider knowledge of various nonneuraxial analgesic options, including efficacy, contraindications, safe clinical implementation, and side effects of various techniques is needed for optimal patient care and satisfaction. Future rigorous scientific studies addressing all of these labor analgesia options are needed to improve our understanding. This review summarizes the current published literature for commonly available non-neuraxial labor analgesic options.

Comparative Efficacy of Water and Conventional Delivery during Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In many maternal settings, water delivery is widely available for women who do not have an increased risk of complications during childbirth. Soaking in water during labor has been associated with a number of maternal benefits. However, the situation of water birth is not well known, there is lack of hard evidence on safety, and little is known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. In this paper, we have explored the effects of water delivery compared to the conventional delivery on the health of mothers and babies. For this purpose, clinical trials were conducted including women in labor, in which participants were treated with water labor or conventional labor, respectively, in the experimental and control group. In this analysis, we have selected 17 eligible studies which included 175654 participants. Compared to the conventional birth group, the risk of Apgar score <7 at 5 min of age in the water birth group dropped by 28% (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-1.00, I 2 = 25%, P=0.05). Also, the duration of labor was shorter the in water birth group whatever the labor stage was. The patients who underwent water birth showed an obviously lower rate of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86, I 2 = 53%, P=0.007). In this meta-analysis, it was seen that water delivery has clinical significance in alleviating the pain of mothers, promoting the safety of mothers and infants, and reducing postpartum complications.

Waterbirth: current knowledge and medico-legal issues

Water immersion during labour and birth has become increasingly popular and widespread in many countries, in particular in midwifery-led care settings. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of quality data about waterbirth, with currently available findings mostly arising from observational studies and case series. The lack of high-quality evidence and the controversial results reported by different studies determined a "behavioral gap" without clearly objective, consistent indications allowing for a sound and evidence-based decision making process. Although water immersion in the first stage of labour is generally considered a safe and cost-effective method of pain management for women in labor, concerns still linger as to the safety of immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery, particularly in terms of neonatal risks and medico-legal implications.