The perfect birth: a content analysis of midwives' posts about birth on Instagram.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research into how midwives use social media within their professional role. Small pilot studies have explored the introduction of social media into maternity practice and teaching but there is little evidence around how midwives use social media professionally. This is important as 89% of pregnant women turn to social media for advice during pregnancy, and how midwives use social media could be influencing women, their perception of birth and their decision making. METHODS: AIM: To analyse how popular midwives portray birth on the social media platform Instagram. This is an observational mixed methods study using content analysis. Five 'popular' midwives from each country (UK, New Zealand, USA and Australia) were identified and their posts about birth collated from a one-year period (2020-21). Images/videos were then coded. Descriptive statistics enabled comparison of the posts by country. Categorisation was used to analyse and understand the content. RESULTS: The study identified 917 posts from the 20 midwives' accounts, containing 1216 images/videos, with most coming from USA (n = 466), and UK (n = 239), Australia (n = 205) and New Zealand (n = 7) respectively. Images/videos were categorised into 'Birth Positivity', 'Humour', 'Education', 'Birth Story' and 'Advertisement'. Midwives' portrayals of birth represented a greater proportion of vaginal births, waterbirths and homebirths than known national birth statistics. The most popular midwives identified mainly had private businesses (n = 17). Both the midwives and women portrayed in images were primarily white, demonstrating a disproportionate representation. CONCLUSION: There is a small midwifery presence on Instagram that is not representative of the broader profession, or the current picture of midwifery care. This paper is the first study to explore how midwives are using the popular social media platform Instagram to portray birth. It provides insight into how midwives post an un-medicalised, low risk representation of birth. Further research is recommended to explore midwives' motivation behind their posts, and how pregnant and postnatal women engage with social media.

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.

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.

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.

A retrospective comparison of waterbirth outcomes in two United States hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Water immersion during labor is an effective comfort measure; however, outcomes for waterbirth in the hospital setting have not been well documented. Our objective was to report the outcomes from two nurse-midwifery services that provide waterbirth within a tertiary care hospital setting in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective, observational, matched comparison design. Data were collected from two large midwifery practices in tertiary care centers using information recorded at the time of birth for quality assurance purposes. Land birth cases were excluded if events would have precluded them from waterbirth (epidural, meconium stained fluid, chorioamnionitis, estimated gestational age < 37 weeks, or body mass index > 40). Neonatal outcomes included Apgar score and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Maternal outcomes included perineal lacerations and postpartum hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 397 waterbirths and 2025 land births were included in the analysis. There were no differences in outcomes between waterbirth and land birth for Apgar scores or neonatal intensive care admissions (1.8% vs 2.5%). Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to sustain a first- or second-degree laceration. Postpartum hemorrhage rates were similar for both groups. Similar results were obtained using a land birth subset matched on insurance, hospital location, and parity using propensity scores. DISCUSSION: In this study, waterbirth was not associated with increased risk to neonates, extensive perineal lacerations, or postpartum hemorrhage. Fewer women in the waterbirth group sustained first- or second-degree lacerations requiring sutures.

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital-Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth.

INTRODUCTION: Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse-midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6-week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi-square) with a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P = .03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P = .045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low-risk women and their neonates.

Developing and evaluating an online learning tool to improve midwives' accuracy of visual estimation of blood loss during waterbirth: An experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: The principal objective was to test the effectiveness of an online learning tool to improve midwives' accuracy of blood loss estimations in a birthing pool environment. The secondary objective was to assess the acceptability of the online learning tool to the midwives using it. DESIGN: A one group pre-test, post-test experiment with immediate and six weeks follow-up to test ability together with an online questionnaire to assess perceived usefulness of an online learning tool. SETTING: A large NHS maternity hospital comprising an acute care obstetric unit, a small district unit labour ward, one alongside midwifery-led unit and three freestanding midwifery-led units. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer NHS employed midwives who had experience in caring for women labouring and giving birth in water (n = 24). INTERVENTION: An online learning tool comprising six randomly ordered short video simulations of blood loss in a birthing pool in real time, and a tutorial giving verbal and pictorial guidance on making accurate blood loss estimations in water was developed then piloted. Midwives' accuracy scores for estimating blood loss in each of the videos were calculated at three timepoints; pre and immediately post the learning component, and six weeks later. The estimated blood loss volume was subtracted from the actual blood loss volume, to give the difference between estimated and real blood loss in millilitres (ml) which was then converted to percentage difference to standardise comparison across the six volumes. The differences between pre- and post-learning for each of the six blood volumes was analysed using a repeated measures ANOVA. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. An online questionnaire incorporated questions using Likert scales to gauge confidence and competence and free text. Free text responses were analysed using a modified form of inductive content analysis. FINDINGS: Twenty-two midwives completed the online learning and immediate post-test, 14 completed a post-test after six weeks, and 15 responded to the online questionnaire. Pre-test results showed under-estimation of all blood loss volumes and particularly for the two largest volumes (1000 and 1100 ml). Across all volumes, accuracy of estimation was significantly improved at post-test 1. Accuracy diminished slightly, but overall improvement remained, at post-test 2. Participants rated the online tool positively and made suggestions for refining it. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study measuring the accuracy of midwives' blood loss estimations in a birthing pool using real-time simulations and testing the effectiveness of an online learning tool to improve this important skill. Our findings indicate a need to develop interventions to improve midwives' accuracy at visually estimating blood loss in water, and the potential of an online approach. Most women who labour and/or give birth in water do so in midwifery-led settings without immediate access to medical support. Accuracy in blood loss estimations is an essential core skill.

The perceptions and experiences of women who achieved and did not achieve a waterbirth.

BACKGROUND: There is a gap in knowledge and understanding relating to the experiences of women exposed to the opportunity of waterbirth. Our aim was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women who achieved or did not achieve their planned waterbirth. METHODS: An exploratory design using critical incident techniques was conducted between December 2015 and July 2016, in the birth centre of the tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Women were telephoned 6 weeks post birth. Demographic data included: age; education; parity; and previous birth mode. Women were also asked the following: what made you choose to plan a waterbirth?; what do you think contributed to you having (or not having) a waterbirth?; and which three words would you use to describe your birth experience? Frequency distributions and univariate comparisons were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from the interviews. RESULTS: A total of 31% (93 of 296) of women achieved a waterbirth and 69% (203 of 296) did not. Multiparous women were more likely to achieve a waterbirth (57% vs 32%; p < 0.001). Women who achieved a waterbirth were less likely to have planned a waterbirth for pain relief (38% vs 52%; p = 0.24). The primary reasons women gave for planning a waterbirth were: pain relief; they liked the idea; it was associated with a natural birth; it provided a relaxing environment; and it was recommended. Two fifths (40%) of women who achieved a waterbirth suggested support was the primary reason they achieved their waterbirth, with the midwife named as the primary support person by 34 of 37 women. Most (66%) women who did not achieve a waterbirth perceived this was because they experienced an obstetric complication. The words women used to describe their birth were coded as: affirming; distressing; enduring; natural; quick; empowering; and long. CONCLUSIONS: Immersion in water for birth facilitates a shift of focus from high risk obstetric-led care to low risk midwifery-led care. It also facilitates evidence based, respectful midwifery care which in turn optimises the potential for women to view their birthing experience through a positive lens.

Exploring Dutch midwives' attitudes to promoting physiological childbirth: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: to describe Dutch midwives' attitudes toward, and motivations for, the promotion of physiological childbirth and to identify factors associated with those attitudes and motivations. DESIGN: exploratory, qualitative design using focus groups. SETTING: The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: hospital- and community-based midwives. FINDINGS: four themes emerged: physiological birth as a continuum, navigating the settings, woman-centeredness and competence and confidence. Midwives view the safeguarding and promotion of physiological childbirth as central to their role. They define physiological childbirth along a continuum that is related to the context of their practice. Hospital culture is seen as an inhibitor of practices that promote physiological birth. Midwives believe that woman-centred ways of working and challenging practices that are not evidence-based will promote physiological childbirth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: in order to become competent and confident practitioners of physiological childbirth midwives need to be aware of the factors that inhibit and encourage practices that support this way of giving birth. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: midwives should consciously employ strategies that promote physiological birth in both home and hospital settings. Midwifery education and midwifery science research should focus on developing strategies that support midwives in this endeavor.

Avoiding the first cesarean section--results of structured organizational and cultural changes.

INTRODUCTION: In 2006 the overall rates of instrumental deliveries (10%) and cesarean sections (CS) (20%) were high in our unit. We decided to improve quality of care by offering more women a safe and attractive normal vaginal delivery. The target group was primarily nulliparous women at term with spontaneous onset of labor and cephalic presentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implementation of a "nine-item list" of structured organizational and cultural change in Linköping 2006-15. The nine items include monitoring of obstetric results, recruitment of a midwife coordinator, risk classification of women, introduction of three different midwife competence levels, improved teamwork, obstetrical morning round, fetal monitoring skills, obstetrical skills training, and public promotion of the strategy. RESULTS: The CS rate in nulliparous women at term with spontaneous onset of labor decreased from 10% in 2006 to 3% in 2015. During the same period the overall CS rate dropped from 20% to 11%. The prevalence of children born at the unit with umbilical cord pH <7 and Apgar score <4 at 5 min were the same over the years studied. At present, 95.2% of women delivering at our unit are satisfied with their delivery experience. CONCLUSIONS: The CS rates have declined after implementing the nine items of organizational and cultural changes. It seems that a specific and persistent multidisciplinary activity with a focus on the Robson group 1 can reduce CS rates without increased risk of neonatal complications.

Importance of the Birth Environment to Support Physiologic Birth.

The birth environment can support or hinder physiologic birth. Although most births occur in hospitals, there has been an increase in requests for home and birth center births. Nurses can support physiologic birth in different environments by ensuring a calm environment that helps reduce stress hormones known to slow labor. In any birth setting, nurses can encourage the use of facilities and equipment that support a physiologic labor and birth and aid the transition of the newborn.

The Value of the Maternity Care Team in the Promotion of Physiologic Birth.

The benefits of normal, physiologic birth have been well documented. Health care providers such as nurses, midwives, and physicians have distinct and significant roles in the promotion of physiologic birth processes. By supporting women and families, doulas can enhance the maternity care team and further facilitate physiologic birth. A collaborative maternity care team can foster and support a common goal of safe, satisfying, and affordable care practices associated with physiologic birth.

Exploring midwives' perception of confidence around facilitating water birth in Western Australia: A qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: the option of labouring and/or birthing immersed in warm water has become widely available throughout hospitals in the United Kingdom and Europe over the last two decades. The practice, which also occurs in New Zealand and interstate in Australia, has until recently only been available in Western Australia for women birthing at home with a small publically funded Community Midwifery Program. Despite its popularity and acceptance elsewhere, birth in water has only recently become an option for women attending some public health services in Western Australia. The Clinical Guidelines developed for the local context that support water birth require that the midwives be confident and competent to care for these women. The issue of competency can be addressed with relative ease by maternity care providers; however confidence is rather more difficult to teach, foster and attain. Clinical confidence is an integral element of clinical judgement and promotes patient safety and comfort. For this reason confident midwives are an essential requirement to support the option of water birth in Western Australia. The aim of this study was to capture midwives' perceptions of becoming and being confident in conducting water birth in addition to factors perceived to inhibit and facilitate the development of that confidence. DESIGN: a modified grounded theory methodology with thematic analysis. SETTINGS: four public maternity services offering the option of water birth in the Perth metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: registered midwives employed at one of the four publicly funded maternity services that offered the option of water birth between June 2011 and June 2013. Sixteen midwives were interviewed on a one to one basis. An additional 10 midwives participated in a focus group interview. FINDINGS: three main categories emerged from the data analysis: what came before the journey, becoming confident - the journey and staying confident. Each contained between three and five subcategories. Together they depicted how midwives describe the journey to becoming confident to support women who have chosen the option to water birth and how they are able to retain that confidence once achieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: three key implications emerged from this study, the first was that students and graduate midwives could benefit from the opportunity to work in midwifery led maternity settings that support normal physiological child birth and that accessing such practical placements should be encouraged. Secondly, maternity services would benefit from learning opportunities directed specifically at experienced midwives addressing their particular requirements. Finally, midwives are the custodians of normal physiological birth, attendance at educational days with a focus on supporting this primary role should be mandatory, to inform midwives on current evidence found to support normal birth which includes options such as water birth.