Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35974712›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2022

The views and perceptions of water immersion for labor and birth from women who had birthed in Australia but had not used the option.

Megan Cooper, Jane Warland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Megan CooperCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Jane WarlandCurtin School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Curtin University · AUFlinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecent research highlights that women experience great benefits from immersing in warm water during labor and birth. While there has been an increase in research examining women's experiences of using water, there has been little investigation of the views and perceptions of women who have not. The objective of this study was to examine the views and perceptions of water immersion from women who had birthed in Australia but had not used the option.

methodsAn e-survey was distributed to women using purposive and snowball sampling methods between November 2016 and October 2017. Email, text, social media, and parenting forums maximized recruitment. A total of 395 women who had not used water immersion for labor or birth participated.

resultsThree quarters of all women surveyed suggested that they would have considered using the option of water immersion if it was offered to them. Nearly 20% of all women did not know it was an option and, therefore, were only made aware of it as a result of completing this survey. Women indicated that they most often learned about water immersion from a midwife. When asked to rate the benefits and concerns, the majority held very little concern and generally agreed that water immersion would probably provide the associated benefits that are commonly cited in the literature.

conclusionsWater immersion offers women many benefits although may not always be discussed antenatally. In light of these results, water immersion could be included in the discussions about labor and birth options antenatally and better supported during labor and birth.

Indexed as

childbirthchoiceexperiencewaterbirthwater immersion

Identifiers

PMID35974712
PMCPMC9348581
OpenAlexW4289745099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.