Table 2 Summary of qualitative papers exploring women´s and midwives´s experiences of waterbirth
From: Experiences of water immersion during childbirth: a qualitative thematic synthesis
Author(s)/Country | Date | Design | Participants | Method of data collection | Method of analysis | Recruitment method and setting | Study focus | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Milosevic et al. [17] United Kingdom | 2019 | Qualitative descriptive | 85 women 83.5% used a pool or bath in labor 63.3% had given birth in water 21 midwives 11 clinical midwives 5 midwifery managers 5 consultant midwives/clinical specialists 14 medical staff 7 consultant obstetricians 1 trainee obstetrician 5 consultant neonatologists 1 consultant paediatrician | Online discussion groups (women and midwives) Semi-structured interviews (medical staff) | Thematic analysis | The recruitment method for this study was opportunistic, with calls for participation disseminated through various online platforms | To identify the factors that influence the use of wáter birth during childbirth | Factors influencing the use of birth pools were grouped into three overarching categories: re- sources, unit culture and guidelines, and staffendorsement. Resources encompassed pool availability, effi- ciency of pool use and availability of waterproof cardiotocograph equipment. Unit culture and guidelines related to eligibility criteria for pool use, medicalisation of birth and differences between midwifery-led and obstetric-led care. Staffendorsement encompassed attitudes towards pool use. |