Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences
- PMID: 38832253
- PMCID: PMC11145720
- DOI: 10.18332/ejm/188193
Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences
Abstract
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.
Keywords: focus group interviews; high-income country; midwives; obstructing factors; promoting factors; waterbirth.
© 2024 Larsson K. et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
Similar articles
-
Waterbirth in low-risk pregnancy: An exploration of women's experiences.J Adv Nurs. 2020 May;76(5):1221-1231. doi: 10.1111/jan.14336. Epub 2020 Mar 11. J Adv Nurs. 2020. PMID: 32090362
-
Effecting change in midwives' waterbirth practice behaviours on labour ward: an action research study.Midwifery. 2014 Mar;30(3):e96-e101. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.11.001. Epub 2013 Nov 16. Midwifery. 2014. PMID: 24456658
-
Testing the waters - A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals.Women Birth. 2020 Mar;33(2):186-192. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.04.003. Epub 2019 May 1. Women Birth. 2020. PMID: 31054879
-
Caring for women making unconventional birth choices: A meta-ethnography exploring the views, attitudes, and experiences of midwives.Midwifery. 2019 May;72:50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.02.009. Epub 2019 Feb 10. Midwifery. 2019. PMID: 30776740
-
Experiences of water immersion during childbirth: a qualitative thematic synthesis.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 May 29;23(1):395. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05690-7. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023. PMID: 37248449 Free PMC article.
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources