Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study

Anthony Lathrop, Carrie F. Bonsack, David Haas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes. Methods: We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores. Results: Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P <.001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P =.002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P =.001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P <.001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes. Conclusion: Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)416-423
Number of pages8
JournalBirth
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2018

Fingerprint

Research Design
Parturition
Prospective Studies
Water
Mothers
Lacerations
Demography
Newborn Infant

Keywords

  • complementary and alternative therapies
  • pain and coping in labor
  • water birth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Women's experiences with water birth : A matched groups prospective study. / Lathrop, Anthony; Bonsack, Carrie F.; Haas, David.

In: Birth, Vol. 45, No. 4, 01.12.2018, p. 416-423.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lathrop, Anthony ; Bonsack, Carrie F. ; Haas, David. / Women's experiences with water birth : A matched groups prospective study. In: Birth. 2018 ; Vol. 45, No. 4. pp. 416-423.
@article{5e0f0b07c3904854b855f339fa4bee14,
title = "Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study",
abstract = "Background: Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes. Methods: We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores. Results: Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P <.001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P =.002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P =.001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P <.001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes. Conclusion: Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.",
keywords = "complementary and alternative therapies, pain and coping in labor, water birth",
author = "Anthony Lathrop and Bonsack, {Carrie F.} and David Haas",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/birt.12362",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "416--423",
journal = "Birth",
issn = "0730-7659",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Women's experiences with water birth

T2 - A matched groups prospective study

AU - Lathrop, Anthony

AU - Bonsack, Carrie F.

AU - Haas, David

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - Background: Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes. Methods: We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores. Results: Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P <.001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P =.002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P =.001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P <.001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes. Conclusion: Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

AB - Background: Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes. Methods: We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores. Results: Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P <.001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P =.002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P =.001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P <.001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes. Conclusion: Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

KW - complementary and alternative therapies

KW - pain and coping in labor

KW - water birth

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056425880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056425880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/birt.12362

DO - 10.1111/birt.12362

M3 - Article

C2 - 29900579

AN - SCOPUS:85056425880

VL - 45

SP - 416

EP - 423

JO - Birth

JF - Birth

SN - 0730-7659

IS - 4

ER -