Mindful awareness as a mechanism of change for natural childbirth in pregnant women with high fear of childbirth: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-Based Childbirth and Parenting (MBCP) is effective in increasing natural childbirth in pregnant women with high fear of childbirth (FOC) as compared to enhanced care as usual (ECAU). We aimed to examine through which pathway of action MBCP reaches this effect, based on a model of approaching or avoiding the challenges related to childbirth. METHODS: One hundred eleven pregnant women with high FOC were measured pre- and post-intervention on FOC (emotion pathway), catastrophic beliefs about labour pain (cognition pathway) and mindful awareness (attention pathway). A multiple mediation model was used to examine through which pathway the mechanism of change operated in relation to approach (i.e., natural childbirth) versus avoidance (i.e., self-requested caesarean section). RESULTS: It was found that greater mindful awareness (18% R2 = 0.18, F[1107] = 22.77, p < 0.0001) was the only significant mechanism of change operating through the attentional pathway leading to natural childbirth. More specifically, nonreactivity to inner experience (a facet of mindful awareness) showed to be the strongest mechanism of change. More extensive meditation practice was positively associated with natural childbirth; however, the number of completed MBCP sessions was not associated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in mindful awareness was the strongest mechanism of change for better adaptation to the challenges of childbirth. Decreases in neither FOC nor catastrophic beliefs about labour pain were identified as mechanisms of change. Additionally, the more one meditated, the more one was inclined towards a natural childbirth. MBCP enhances adaptation to the challenges of childbirth and less use of obstetric interventions in the presence of high FOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR; 4302 ).

Testing the waters - A cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals.

BACKGROUND: For women with low risk births, waterbirth is an alternative that is requested and provided in approximately a hundred countries. However, in some countries, including Sweden, waterbirth is not generally available. AIM: To explore the experiences, knowledge and attitudes regarding waterbirth among midwives, obstetricians/gynaecologists and neonatologists. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Sweden, using a web-based survey distributed via The Swedish Association of Midwives and the Heads of department of all Swedish maternity wards between April and June 2016. The respondents (n = 1609) answered a combination of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. The responses were analysed with descriptive statistics and quantitative content analyses. FINDINGS: Both midwives and physicians stated a lack of experience, knowledge and clinical guidelines related to attending and assisting waterbirths. Overall, midwives had more positive attitudes to waterbirth (38.8% vs 4.5%) as well as towards providing and implementing waterbirth, compared to physicians (71.0% vs 14.9%). Midwives stated significantly more benefits and fewer risks for women and babies, compared to physicians who requested more evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Opinions regarding waterbirth are to some extent based on attitudes rather than actual experience and knowledge. There are diverse interpretations of the strength of evidence and a lack of updating in the research field of waterbirth. As waterbirth is requested by women, health professionals need to update their knowledge in this topic in order to give coherent and evidence-based information and care to prospective parents.

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.

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.

The association of birth model with resilience variables and birth experience: Home versus hospital birth.

OBJECTIVE: to study home, natural hospital, and medical hospital births, and the association of these birth models to resilience and birth experience. DESIGN: cross-section retrospective design. SETTING: participants were recruited via an online survey system. Invitations to participate were posted in five different Internet forums for women on maternity leave, from September 2014 to August 2015. PARTICIPANTS: the sample comprised 381 post partum healthy women above the age of 20, during their maternity leave. Of the participants: 22% gave birth at home, 32% gave birth naturally in a hospital, and 46% of the participants had a medical birth at the hospital. MEASUREMENTS: life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R), General Self-Efficacy Scale, Sense of Mastery Scale, Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). FINDINGS: women having had natural births, whether at home or at the hospital, significantly differed from women having had medical births in all aspects of the birth experience, even when controlling for age and optimism. Birth types contributed to between 14% and 24% of the explained variance of the various birth experience aspects. KEY CONCLUSIONS: home and natural hospital births were associated with a better childbirth experience. Optimism was identified as a resilience factor, associated both with preference as well as with childbirth experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: physically healthy and resilient women could be encouraged to explore the prospect of home or natural hospital births as a means to have a more positive birth experience.

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.

Why won't Polish women birth at home?

Polish women living in the United Kingdom (UK) are statistically more likely to have normal births than their British counterparts, yet anecdotally, do not choose to birth their babies at home. A medicalised approach to birth in their country of origin means women are unaware of the benefits of midwifery-led care, which they often perceive as sub-standard. Affordable travel means Polish women can access care in both countries and compounds the difficulties in acclimatising to UK maternity services. Online discussion groups and Internet forums represent an opportunity for midwives to engage with women to promote their services. This is increasingly important with rising numbers of both Polish migrants to the UK and Polish residents applying for British citizenship.