RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth. DESIGN: Cohort study with non-inferiority design. SETTING: Twenty-six UK NHS maternity services. SAMPLE: A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth. METHODS: Non-inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth. RESULTS: Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.79). CONCLUSION: Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: It is well documented that many women do not desire a short interpregnancy interval. Medical societies, government agencies and leaders in the field recommend that contraception should be part of maternity care. Short spaced and unplanned pregnancies increase the chances of mortality and morbidity in the mother and child. The WHO recommends a 24-month interpregnancy interval; however, short pregnancy intervals remain common. The goal of this scoping review will be to explore barriers and facilitators to the uptake of early postnatal contraception. A review of globally published literature relating to the implementation of a postnatal contraception service provision globally will be carried out which will highlight evidence gaps, strengths and weaknesses of studies associated with uptake and known barriers and facilitators to the uptake of early postnatal contraception. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy aims to locate both published and unpublished studies. An initial limited search of PubMed and CINAHL was undertaken to identify articles on the provision of postnatal contraception. The search strategy will be adapted for each included database CINAHL, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, PROSPERO and COCHRANE from 1 January 1993 to 1 January 2023 and reviewed by two reviewers. The data will be analysed and presented in tables, diagrams and text. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. This review is a retrospective review of widely and publicly available evidence. The review findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, as part of a PhD thesis and conference presentation. SCOPING REVIEW QUESTION: What are the barriers and facilitators to early postnatal contraception provision and uptake?