ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2026
Characteristics of Women, Intrapartum Interventions, and Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Among Users of Intrapartum Water Immersion: The UK POOL Cohort Study.
Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe POOL study explored intrapartum water immersion and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes at 26 UK sites 2015-2022.
methodsRetrospective and prospective data captured in electronic maternity and neonatal UK National Health Service (NHS) information systems. Analysis-(a) proportions of women using and factors associated with water immersion during labour or birth; (b) outcomes among "low-risk" women who used water immersion during labour or birth; (c) management and outcomes of the third stage of labour following waterbirth.
resultsAmong 869,744 included births, 10% (n = 87,040) used water immersion during labour or birth and 4.6% (n = 39,627) gave birth in water, with rates falling over time. Being of white or multi-ethnicity, fluent in English, non-smokers or ex-smokers, from more affluent areas, and nulliparous were associated with higher rates of water use. Overall, 39.6% of nulliparous and 9.9% of parous women at low risk at labour onset, and who used water immersion during labour, received obstetric or anesthetic care during the intrapartum period. Physiological third stage management was used following 27.1% (n = 10,737) of waterbirths and following 8.6% (n = 2260) of waterbirths the placenta was delivered into water. The rate of recorded blood loss ≥ 1000 mL was not significantly different when the placenta was delivered in water compared to placental delivery out of water.
conclusionThis large UK study of water immersion during labour and birth provides important information for policymakers, maternity health professionals, and for women and families considering the option of intrapartum water immersion. Care providers need to ensure equal access to intrapartum water immersion across demographic groups and provide women with evidence-based rates of obstetric interventions that take into account their risk status and birth choices.
trial registrationISRCTN13315580.
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.