Search

Aims: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. Design: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. Review methods: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. Results: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included—quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited. Plain English Summary: During childbirth, most women wish to use a pain management technique; some prefer to use medications and others prefer non-medication methods. Another option is to use a birthing pool, larger than a typical bath, that encourages buoyancy and the freedom to move. The warm water can also offer comfort, relaxation and pain relief. Extensive studies have demonstrated birthing pool use during childbirth is safe for mothers and babies. It is associated with reduced medical interventions (e.g. speeding up labour and cuts to the perineum), improved outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, less pain or excessive bleeding after birth). Given these positive outcomes, we wanted to explore any barriers or facilitators for birthing women and people accessing birthing pools so we could help improve access for those wishing to use one. We gathered and assessed the literature to explore these aspects. We included quantitative and qualitative studies exploring the perspectives of different maternity professionals and those of organisations. We reviewed 37 studies from 12 countries (from 2004 to 2020). We found that birthing pool use was a viable option when all maternity professional groups and their organisational guidelines or policies valued and supported its use. Conversely, in other organisations, multiple barriers prevented the use of birthing pools as an equally viable option to medication pain relief options. These barriers were influenced by the beliefs of different maternity professional groups, organisational guidelines or policies (where some were highly restrictive) whether midwives were supported to offer care in birthing pools or whether the midwives had the confidence to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. Design: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. Review methods: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. Results: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included—quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited. Plain English Summary: During childbirth, most women wish to use a pain management technique; some prefer to use medications and others prefer non-medication methods. Another option is to use a birthing pool, larger than a typical bath, that encourages buoyancy and the freedom to move. The warm water can also offer comfort, relaxation and pain relief. Extensive studies have demonstrated birthing pool use during childbirth is safe for mothers and babies. It is associated with reduced medical interventions (e.g. speeding up labour and cuts to the perineum), improved outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, less pain or excessive bleeding after birth). Given these positive outcomes, we wanted to explore any barriers or facilitators for birthing women and people accessing birthing pools so we could help improve access for those wishing to use one. We gathered and assessed the literature to explore these aspects. We included quantitative and qualitative studies exploring the perspectives of different maternity professionals and those of organisations. We reviewed 37 studies from 12 countries (from 2004 to 2020). We found that birthing pool use was a viable option when all maternity professional groups and their organisational guidelines or policies valued and supported its use. Conversely, in other organisations, multiple barriers prevented the use of birthing pools as an equally viable option to medication pain relief options. These barriers were influenced by the beliefs of different maternity professional groups, organisational guidelines or policies (where some were highly restrictive) whether midwives were supported to offer care in birthing pools or whether the midwives had the confidence to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most pervasive form of female genital mutilation/cutting--infibulation--involves the almost complete closure of the vaginal orifice by cutting and closing the labia to create a skin seal. A small opening remains for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. This physical closure has to be re-opened--defibulated--later in life. When they marry, a partial opening is made to enable sexual intercourse. The husband commonly uses his penis to create this opening. In some settings, a circumciser or traditional midwife opens the infibulated scar with a knife or razor blade. Later, during childbirth, a further opening is necessary to make room for the child's passage. In Norway, public health services provide surgical defibulation, which is less risky and painful than traditional forms of defibulation. This paper explores the perceptions and experiences of surgical defibulation among migrants in Norway and investigates whether surgical defibulation is an accepted medicalization of a traditional procedure or instead challenges the cultural underpinnings of infibulation. Methods: Data derived from in-depth interviews with 36 women and men of Somali and Sudanese origin and with 30 service providers, as well as participant observations in various settings from 2014-15, were thematically analyzed. Results: The study findings indicate that, despite negative attitudes towards infibulation, its cultural meaning in relation to virility and sexual pleasure constitutes a barrier to the acceptance of medicalized defibulation. Conclusions: As sexual concerns regarding virility and male sexual pleasure constitute a barrier to the uptake of medicalized defibulation, health care providers need to address sexual concerns when discussing treatment for complications in infibulated women. Furthermore, campaigns and counselling against this practice also need to tackle these sexual concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Utilization of Skilled Birth Attendants (SBAs) at birth is low (20%) in Bangladesh. Birth attendance by SBAs is considered as the "single most important factor in preventing maternal deaths". This paper examined the practices and determinants of delivery by SBAs in rural Bangladesh. Methods: The data come from the post-intervention survey of a cluster-randomized community controlled trial conducted to evaluate the impact of limited post-natal care (PNC) services on healthcare seeking behavior of women with a recent live birth in rural Bangladesh (n = 702). Multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify the potential determinants of delivery by SBAs. Results: The respondents were aged between 16 and 45, with the mean age of 24.41 (± 5.03) years. Approximately one-third (30.06%) of the women had their last delivery by SBAs. Maternal occupation, parity, complications during pregnancy and antenatal checkup (ANC) by SBAs were the significant determinants of delivery by SBAs. Women who took antenatal care by SBAs were 2.62 times as likely (95% CI: 1.66, 4.14; p < 0.001) to have their delivery conducted by SBAs compared to those who did not, after adjusting for other covariates. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that ANC by SBAs and complications during pregnancies are significant determinants of delivery by SBAs. Measure should be in place to promote antenatal checkup by SBAs to increase utilization of SBAs at birth in line with achieving the Millennium Development Goal-5. Future research should focus in exploring the unmet need for, and potential barriers in, the utilization of delivery by SBAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: India launched a national conditional cash transfer program, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), aimed at reducing maternal mortality by promoting institutional delivery in 2005. It provides a cash incentive to women who give birth in public health facilities. This paper studies the extent of program uptake, reasons for participation/ non participation, factors associated with non uptake of the program, and the role played by a program volunteer, accredited social health activist (ASHA), among mothers in Ujjain district in Madhya Pradesh, India. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to May 2011 among women giving birth in 30 villages in Ujjain district. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 418 women who delivered in 2009. Socio-demographic and pregnancy related characteristics, role of the ASHA during delivery, receipt of the incentive, and reasons for place of delivery were collected. Multinomial regression analysis was used to identify predictors for the outcome variables; program delivery, private facility delivery, or a home delivery. Results: The majority of deliveries (318/418; 76%) took place within the JSY program; 81% of all mothers below poverty line delivered in the program. Ninety percent of the women had prior knowledge of the program. Most program mothers reported receiving the cash incentive within two weeks of delivery. The ASHA's influence on the mother's decision on where to deliver appeared limited. Women who were uneducated, multiparious or lacked prior knowledge of the JSY program were significantly more likely to deliver at home. Conclusion: In this study, a large proportion of women delivered under the program. Most mothers reporting timely receipt of the cash transfer. Nevertheless, there is still a subset of mothers delivering at home, who do not or cannot access emergency obstetric care under the program and remain at risk of maternal death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]