ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2024
Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Water Birth Compared with Conventional Vaginal Delivery: A Five-Year Retrospective Cohort Study from Southeastern Europe.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWaterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.
methodsA qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.
resultsThe midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.
conclusionsThe study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.